S3 



T. 



F 203 
S3 
opy 1 



.. STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS 



FOR 



MILK PRODUCTION 



ELMER SETH SAVAGE 



THESIS 

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University 
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



REPRINT OF BULLETIN 323 OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 

Agricultural Experiment Station 



A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS 



FOR 



MILK PRODUCTION 



ELMER SETH SAVAGE 



THESIS 

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University 
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



REPRINT OF BULLETIN 323 OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY 



Agricultural Experiment Station 



s 



.91 



CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 

Experimenting Staff 

LIBERTY H. BAILEY. M.S.. LL.D, Director 
ALBERT R. MANN. B.S.A.. Secretary and Editor. 
JOHN H. COMSTOCK. B.S., Entomology. 
HENRY H. WINO. M.S. in Agr., Animal Husbandry. 
T. LYTTLETOX LYON. Ph.D., Soil Technology. 
HERBERT J. WEBBER. M.A.. Ph.D , Plant-Breeding. 
JOHN L. STONE. B. Agr , Farm Practice and Farm Crops. 
JAMES E. RICE. B.S.A.. Poultry Husbandry. 
GEORGE W. CAVANAUGH. B.S.. Chemistry. 
HERBERT H. WHETZEL. A.B.. M.A.. Plant Pathology. 
ELMER O. FIPPIN. B.S.A., Soil Technology. 
GEORGE F. WARREN. Ph.D., Farm Management. 
WILLIAM A. STOCKING. Jr.. M.S.A.. Dairy Industry. 
CHARLES S. WILSON. A.B..M.S.A., Pomology. 
WILFORD M. WILSON, M.D., Meteorology. 
WALTER MULFORD, B. S. A., F.E.. Forestry. 
HARRY H. LOVE, Ph.D., Plant-Breeding Investigation!. 
ARTHUR W. GILBERT. Ph.D., Plant-Breeding. 
DONALD REDDICK. A.B.. Ph.D.. Plant Pathology. 
EDWARD G. MONTGOMERY. M.A., Farm Crops. 
WILLIAM A. RILEY, Ph.D.. Entomology. 
MERRITT W. HARPER. M.S., Animal Husbandry. 
J. A. BIZZELL, Ph.D., Soil Technology. 
CLARENCE A. ROGERS, M.S.A.. Poultry Husbandry. 
GLENN W. IIERRICK, B.S.A., Economic Entomology. 
HOWARD W. RILEY. M.E., Farm Mechanics. 
CYRUS R. C;R0SBY. A.B.. Entomological Investigations. 
HAROLD E. ROSS, M.S.A.. Dairy Industry. 
ELMER S. SAVAGE. M.S.A., Ph.D.. Animal Husbandry. 
LEWIS KNUDSON. B.S.A., Ph.D.. Plant Physiology. 
KENNETH C. LIVERMORE. B.vS.in Agr.. Farm Management. 
ALVIN C. BEAL. Ph.D., Floriculture. 
MORTIER F. BARRUS, A.B., Plant Pathology. 

GEORGE W. TAILBY. Jr., B.S.A., Superintendent of Live-Stoclc. 
EDWARD S. GUTHRIE, M.S. in Agr., Dairy Industry. 
PAUL WORK, B.S., A.B.. Olericulture. 

EDWARD R. MINNS, B.S.A.. Farm Practice and Farm Crops. 
JOHN BENTLEY. Jr., B.S., M.F., Forestry. 
HARVEY L. AYRES. Superintendent of Dairy Manufactures. 
EMMONS W. LELAND, B.S.A., Soil Technology. 
CHA«1,ES T. GREGORY. B.S. in Agr.. Plant Pathology. 
\ijt'ljte VV. FISK. B.S. in Agr.. Dairy Industry. 
^^V-W^THOyiY. B.S., B.S. in Agr.. Pomology. 

The regular bulletins of the Statij),it are sent free to persons r.'siding in New 
York State who request them. ' ' ' 



#' 



^^ ei6l EHVW 






A STUDY OF FEEDING STANDARDS FOR MILK PRODUCTION* 

E. S. Savage 

What may be called the science of animal nutrition began with six 
experiments conducted by two German scientists, Henneberg and Stoh- 
man, the results of which were published about i860. Since that time 
man^/ scientists, notably in Germany and also in America since the found- 
ing of the American experiment stations, have interested themselves in 
trying to calculate the definite food requirements of certain groups of 
animals used for such purposes as labor, meat, wool, and milk production. 
These food requirem.ents have been tabulated and designated " feeding 
standards." 

Perhaps these standards have been of greater interest to teachers and 
investigators than to practical stock-feeders. To the practical feeder, 
feeding is an art; to the investigator, feeding is an exact science. Yet the 
teachings of science cannot be disregarded by the practical man, and he 
should ha\^e an adequate knowledge of the physiological make-up of his 
animals, of the different constituents of feeding-stuffs, and of the various 
uses to which those constituents are put in order to meet the physiolog- 
ical requirements of the body as to growth, health, and product. In like 
manner the investigator must not lose sight of the fact that in the words 
of the old Gemian adage, qvioted by Henry, " The eye of the master fattens 
his cattle." 

There are two distinct uses of feeding standards which cannot be denied. 
These uses are very important. One is as a basis from which to teach the 
elementary facts of animal nutrition to students in the colleges. The 
other is as a basis for use in economical feeding operations. In both cases, 
after the feeding standards are thoroughly understood they may be de- 
parted from so far as the experience of the indi\4dual may show it to be 
advisable. 

With the purpose of learning something of the ai:)plicatio:i of two of 
the more recent feeding standards — that of Haecker and that, of Amisby 
— the present work was instituted at the Cornell University Agricultural 
Experiment Station in the winter of 1909-1910. Haecker's standard has 
to do with feeding dairy cows exclusively; and only that part of Annsby's 
standard which has to do with dairy production is considered in this 
paper. 

*Also presented liefnrc the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University, June, 191 1, as a 
major thesis in parli.il fulfillment of the requirements for the ,d3gree of Doctor of Philosophy. 

59 ' ■ ' * 

•:-;;;w«r..; 



6o Bulletin 323 

HISTORY OF FEEDING STANDARDS ^ 

The three volumes containing the data of Henneberg and Stohman were 
known as the Weende Reports. They were published between i860 and 
1870 and were the foundation of the study of feeding standards. To the 
authors of these reports, more than to any other persons, belongs the 
credit for having started the study of animal-feeding from a scientific 
point of view. 

The name of Justus von Liebig is also prominent in these early studies; 
while the Munich scientists, Bischoff and Voit, have contributed much to the 
laws of nutrition in their work, " On the Laws of the Nutrition of Car- 
nivora." Boussingault, the French chemist and farmer, deserves mention 
in this connection. His experience dates from 1836. In England, Lawes 
and Gilbert of the Rothamsted Station contributed very largely to the 
early knowledge of nutrition. 

Hay values 
Thaer seems to have been the first to inaugurate a systematic scheme 
for feeding. He worked out the r3lative values of different feeding-stuffs 
in terms of " good " meadow hay, the value of the hay for feeding purposes 
being the standard unit. These hay values 'were in use for some time 
previous to 1858. They were modified by other agricultural writers and 
teachers, but were not changed in principle until 1858. 

Grouven's feeding standards 
In 1858 Grouven proposed to formulate into standards the food com- 
ponents as required by diflerent animals according to their live weight. 
Eight standards were given for dairy cows, according to their weight from 
772 to 1,543 pounds. For cows weighing about 1,000 pounds Grouven 
proposed the following standard, the constituents being crude protein, 
crude fat, and crude carbohydrates: dry matter 28.7 pounds, protein 2.76 
pounds, fat .86 pound, and carbohydrates 14.55 pounds. The nutritive 
ratio was about i: 6.1. The components were not varied at all in the 
standards for production, being based entirely on live weight. 

Wolffs feeding standards 
The next standards proposed were those of Emil von Wolfif in 1864. 
Digestion experiments had been conducted to some extent at this time and 
Wolff recognized the value of a standard in terms of digestible constituents. 
The Wolff standard for milch cows was as follows: for a cow weighing 
1,000 pounds, organic matter 24 pounds, digestible protein 2.5 pounds, 
digestible carbohydrates 12. 5 pounds, and digestible fat .40 pound. 

> F. W. WoU. " On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk and Butter Fat by Dairy Cows." 
Wis. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. ii6. 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



6i 



This standard of Wolff's was published in the Annual Aj^ricultural Cal- 
endar of Mentzcl and von Lengerke^ and thus became widely known and 
practiced by Gennan farmers. 

Julius Kuhn^ criticises this standard of Wolff's very severely in that the 
standard was supposed to apply to all cases. Kuhn would have a basal ration 
for maintenance and then add supplementar}^ amounts for production. 
He would vary the amounts fed from 20 to 23.5 pounds of dry matter, 
from 1.5 to 2.4 pounds of digestible albuminoids (he separates the digestible 
amides from the rest of the protein, saying that the digestible amides have 
the same effect as the carbohydrates) , and from 12 to 14 pounds of diges- 
tible amides, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract, with a nutritive ratio 
of 1:5.5 to 1:8 according to the production of the cow being fed. 



Wolff-Lehmann feeding standard 

Next in line comes the Lehmann modification of the Wolff standard. 
This was published, after the death of Wolff, in the Annual Agricultural 
Calendar of Mentzel and von Lengerke^ for 1897, page 107. This standard 
took into account the objections of Kuhn, and the Wolff standard was 
m.odified to meet the supposed requirements of cows giving different quan- 
tities of milk. They were based on 1,000 pounds live weight and were 
as follows: 

TABLE I 



When yielding daily 


Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 


Digestible nutrients 


Protein 
(pounds) 


Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 


Fat 
(pounds) 


Nutritive 
ratid 


1 1 pounds milk . . . . .■ 


25 
27 
29 

32 


1.6 
2.0 
2.5 
3-3 


10 
II 
13 
13 


■3 
•4 

•5 
.8 


1:6.7 
1:6.0 
1:5.7 
1:4-5 


16.6 pounds milk 

22 . pounds milk 

27 . 5 pounds milk 



Since their first appearance these German standards, as they have been 
called, have been widely published both in Europe and in America. The}' 
form the basis for the computation of rations in nearly all the works on 
feeding. Wolff's standards are found as the basis in Armsby's " Manual 
of Cattle Feeding." However, Doctor Armsby has changed his basis 
entirely since the last edition of this book, as will be seen later. W. A. 

' F. W. Won. "On the Relation of Food lo the Production of Milk and Butter Fat bv Dai'-y Cows." 
Wis. Airr. E-.p. Sta. Bui. iio. 

* Julius Kuhn. "' Feeding Standards for Domestic Animals." E.\p. Sta. Record 4: 6. 



62 Bulletin 323 

Henry ^ used the Wolff-Lehmann standards as the basis of his rations. 
W. H. Jordan-' also used the Wolff- Lchmann standard in his work. Besides 
these works, which are probably the most popular and widely read works 
on feeding in America, the Wolff-Lehmann standards have been published 
in a large number of pamphlets and bulletins of the experiment stations 
of the various countries. 

In addition to the standards noted above, three other German investi- 
gators have published standards of more or less value: Maerkcr,^ Pott,' 
and Kellner.^ One Swedish investigator, N. Hansson,® has also published 
a set of " feeding tables." 

FEEDING STANDARDS IN AMERICA 

The feeding standards that have been in common use in this country 
up to within the last }^ear or two, and are in use to a great extent e\^cn 
now, are the Wolff- Lchmann standards. In 1894 F. W. Woll' published 
a standard ration which was the average of about one hundred rations in 
the United States and Canada. The average ration was: dry matter 
24.51 pounds, digestible protein 2.15 pounds, digestible carbohydrates 
and fat 14.51 pounds, nutritive ratio i:6.c;. Woll gives this as evi- 
dence that, in the experience of American farmers who are practical 
feeders, less protein is needed than is recomm.ended by the Wolff-Lehmann 
standards. Also, the rations can have a wider nutritive ratio. Woll 
called his standard the "American practical feeding ration " and recom- 
mended its use by farmers in place of the Gennan standard. 

At the Connecticut (Storrs) station Atwater and Phelps ** formulated a 
standard from their experience along the same lines as those followed by 
Woll, with a little difference in the requirements of the different con- 
stituents. 

In the last two or three years a feeding standard proposed by T. L. 
Haecker," of Minnesota, has received much attention from dairymen and 
has been adopted in many cases as a guide for feeding dairy cows, notably 
by H. R. Smith'" and C. B. Lane," and by " Hoard's Dairyman." 

In January, 1909, H. P. Armsby'"^ published a set of feeding standards 
based on the production values of feeding-stuffs as determined by Kellner 
at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany. 

' W. A. Henry. " Feeds and Feeding." 
'' W. H. Jordan. " Feuding Farm Animals." 

' F. W. Woll. " On the Relation of Food to the Production of Milk an! Butter Fat bv Dairy Cows." 
W's. A r. Exp. Sta. Bui. ii6. 

* Exp. Sta. Record 22: 375. 

'O. Kellner. " The Scientific Feeding of Animals." Translation by William Goodwin. 

• N. Hansson. Exp. Sta. Record 20: 475. 

' F. W. Woll. " One Hundred American Rations for Dairy Cows." Wis. A':;r. Exp. Sta. Bui. 38. 

« W. O. Atwater and C. S. Phelps." " N'itroRonous Feadin-? Stuffs and Feeding Formulas for Dairy 
Cows." loth Ann. Rept. Conn. (Storrs) Agr. Exp. Sta., p. 67. 

» T. L. Haecker. " Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 7q. 

'» H. R. Smith. " Profitable Stock Feeding." 

" C. B. Lane. " The Business of Dairying." 

>■■' H. P. Armsby. " The Computation of Rations for Farm Animals by the Use of Energy Values." 
U. S. Dept. Agr., Farmers' Bui. 346. 



Feedino Standards for Milk Production 63 

The study of these last two feeding standards will now be taken up in 
detail, since they form the basis of the experiment herein reported. 

haecker's feeding standard for dairy production 
In 1892 T. L. Haccker took up his investigations at the Minnesota 
Agricultural Experiment Station. He began his work by keeping careful 
herd records of production and the cost of feeding. For several years he 
published the " Dairy Herd-Records " in the several reports and bulletins 
of the station.^ There is nothing that needs consideration in the earlier 
reports except to mention that during the winter of 1893-1894 experi- 
ments were conducted comparing the feeding value of timothy and 
prairie hay, and during the winter of 1894-1895 experiments were 
conducted comparing the feeding value of wheat, barley, and corn. 
These experiments are mentioned because Haecker used the data from 
them in later discussions in regard to his feeding standard. 

In all the feeding work at Minnesota, Haecker reports the cows to 
have had all the feed that they would eat up clean. They were fed 
in as nearly a common-sense, practical way as possible. When a cow 
has shown a desire for more food and has shown that she would give a 
good return for it, it has been given to her. The aim has been to keep the 
cows in good working condition without any appreciable gain or loss in 
body weight after the first eleven weeks from calving. During the first 
eleven weeks it has been expected that a cow would lose in body weight, 
particularly if she was in good flesh at the time of calving. More will be 
said of this later. 

The work that fonned the basis of the Haecker standard was pub- 
lished by Haecker in bulletins 71 and 79 of the Minnesota station. All 
the data in these bulletins w^cre taken from the herd records, considering 
mature cows in what Professor Haecker calls " good normal working 
condition." The results in Bulletin 71 wiU be taken up first. 

Data in Bulletin 71 oj the Minnesota station 
I. Protein requirements. — In the Wolff-Lehmann standard, Doctor 
Lehmann calculated that.. 7 pound protein w^as required for maintenance 
per 1,000 pounds live weight and that .081 pound was required for the 
production of i pound of milk. These requirements were the same whether 
the cow was giving 1 1 pounds or 2 2 pounds of milk daily. Haecker noticed 

' T. L. Haecker: 

■' Dairy Herd-Record for 1892." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rept. 1893: 313-324. 

" Dairy Herd-Record for 1893; Cost of Butter Production in Winter; Comparing Prairie with Tim- 
othy Hay; Rearing Dairy Calves; Cooperative Creameries; Experiments in Sweet-curd Cheese." Minn. 
Agr. E.xp. Sta. Bui. 35. 

" Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 67. 

" Investigation in Milk Production; Protein Requirements." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 71. 

" Investigation in Milk Production." Minn. A'.jr. E^p. Sta. Bui. 79. 

" The Relation of Nutriment to Product." Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 106. 



64 Bulletin 323 

that in the experiment in comparing timothy hay with prairie hay, 
less protein seemed to be required than the Wolff-Lehmann standard 
called for. 

There were twelve cows in the experiment. The average daily pro- 
duction was 25.81 pounds of milk testing 4.06 per cent fat, on 24.38 pounds 
of dry iTiatter containing 1.99 pound digestible protein, 12.82 pounds diges- 
tible carbohydrates, and .59 pound fat. The Wolff- Lehmann standard 
gi\-es 2.5 pounds digestible protein as the amount required for 22 pounds 
of milk daily. The average weight of the cows during the trial was 950 
pounds, and allowing them daily for maintenance .7 pound of protein per 
1,000 pounds live weight there remains 1.33 pound protein daily for milk 
production. Since the cows gave 25.81 pounds of milk daily, they re- 
turned I pound of milk for .051 pound of protein, instead of for .081 pound 
according to the Lehmann standard. Singling out the mature cows, which 
made little if any gain in weight, nine remain. Using the factor .7 pound 
protein for maintenance and determining the amount available for product, 
the following average results are obtained: average weight 991 pounds, 
protein daily 2.09 pounds, protein for maintenance .69 pound, protein for 
product 1.40 pound, milk daily 29.06 pounds testing 3.9 per cent fat. 
From these averages, we have .0481 pound of protein required for i pound 
of milk. The amount of protein required varied all the way from .035 
pound in the case of one cow giving 43.50 pounds of milk testing 2.5 per 
cent fat, to .057 pound as required by cows giving 25.80 and 25.99 pounds 
of milk containing 5.3 per cent fat. The value of the data given above 
is lessened when the length of the experiment is considered, since the 
time was only fourteen days. 

However, data from the wheat, barley, and corn experiment are avail- 
able on the same question. Two periods — one of eighty-four days and 
the other of seventy days — are considered here, so that the data have 
more value. The rations varied from 20.08 pounds to 31.49 pounds dry 
matter, and averaged 24.30 pounds dry matter containing 2.01 pounds 
protein, 12.03 pounds carbohydrates, and 1.53 pound fat. (In all cases in 
this paper the tcnns protein, carbohydrates, and fat have reference to the 
digestible constituents alone. If the crude amounts are meant, it will be so 
stated.) The average daily yield was 26.96 pounds millv, testing 4.01 per 
cent fat. The average weight of the cows was 954 pounds. Allowing 
.66 pound protein for maintenance, we have 1.35 pound protein for product, 
or .05 pound protein for i pound milk testing 4.01 per cent fat. These fig- 
ures are the average for twelve cows for eighty-four days. One cow had 
aborted and another was neAr the close of her lactation period . Taking these 
out, the average requirement was .046 pound protein for i pound milk testing 
3.9 per cent fat. During the next seventy days, twelve cows were in an 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



6S 



experiment tnat j^ves results on the same question. The average weight 
of the cows was 958 pounds. They received daily 2 pounds of protein, of 
which 1.33 pound was for product. The yield was 25.23 pounds milk 
testing 4.07 per cent fat, or .053 pound protein for i pound milk. 

Conclusions as to protein requirements. — From the results of the two 
experiments reviewed above, .046 pound of protein available for product 
is suggested as sufficient to produce i pound of milk and to maintain the 
flow. By increasing or diminishing this allowance by .004 pound for each 
.5 per cent increase or decrease in the percentage of fat in the milk, Haecker 
estimated that the ration would be adjusted to the needs of the cows 
giving various grades of milk. Milk testing 3.85 per cent fat is fixed 
as the standard average, and a cow giving that grade of millc should 
receive .046 pound of protein to each pound of milk produced. 

2. Experiment in feeding dairy cows with rations containing varying 
amounts of protein and having various nutritive ratios. — In this experiment 
it was planned to divide the herd into six groups of five cows each, to be 
fed during the winter on rations containing protein and having nutritive 
ratios as follows: 

TABLE 2 



Group 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Nutritive 
ratio 



I 


2.42 
2.15 

1.86 
1. 61 
1-47 


1:5.3 


2 


1:6.4 


■J 


1:72 


A 


1:83 


C. . 


1:9-3 







(Data for group 6 not given in bulletin cited.) 



These plans were not held to exactly, since the roughage was not analyzed 
by the Station Chemist until later and in planning the experiment the 
average composition of American feeding-stuffs was used. A number of 
cows aborted during the winter and the records are very much disturbed 
because of this. In the -final conclusions of the experiment, as shown by 
Table 6 on page 67, no results are given for groups 3 and 6. The other 
groups are said to be made up of four cows each. Why groups 3 and 6 were 
dropped and why one cow was dropped from each of the other groups is 
not explained. 

The experiment ran through three periods. During the first period all 
the cows were fed the same ration, it being mixed as follows during the 
time noted : 



66 



Bl'lletin 32,^ 
TABLE 3. Rations in Period i (in Pounds) 



Dec. 31- I Jan. 7-20 ' Jan. 21-27 
Jan. 6 1 



Bran 

Corn 

Gluten meal 
Mangels. . . . 
Fodder corn 
Silage 




During period 2, the eight weeks from January 28 to March 24, the 
rations for the various groups were mixed as follows: 

TABLE 4. Rations in Period 2 (i.\ Pounds) 
(January' 28 to March 24) 





Group I 


Group 2 


Group 4 


Group 5 


Bran 


5 


5 
25 
25 

2 

12 
36 


8 

2 
2 

12 
36 




Oats 


4 
4 

4 


Corn 

Barley 


25 

25 

2 

12 
36 


Gluten meal 


Fodder corn 


12 


Silage 


36 



Group 3 received the same ration as did group 4, except that bran was 
substituted for oats. Grou]) 6 received the same ration as did group 5, 
except that bran was substituted for oats. 

During jseriod 3 all the cows were fed the following ration : 
TABLE 5. Rations in Period 3 



Pounds 



Bran 

Corn 

Gluten meal . 
Prairie hay . 
Silage 



5 
5 
2 

12 
36 



The cows were fed at all tiines as much as they seemed to need and all 
that they could use to good advantage, in the judgment of the feeder. 



Feeding vStandards for AIilk Prodic-tion 



67 



The results of the experiment are given in the following table: 

TABLE 6 
Period i 



Group 



Average 

weight 

(pounds) 



Protein 
Total for 

protein ! main- 
(poundsj tenance 
(pounds) 



Protein 

for 
product 

(pounds) 



Pounds Per- 
milk I centage 

I fat 



Pounds 
protein 

to I 
pound 

milk 



1 769 

2 ' 725 

4 881 

5 ! 669 

Average, period i . . 761 



1-774 
1.605 

1-845 
1-594 



■538 
-507 
.617 
.468 



1.704 



-533 



1.236 
1 .098 
1.228 
1 . 126 



16.86 
14.86 
16.75 
17-51 



5-53 
5-17 
4.70 

4.78 



-0733 
-0739 
-0733 
.0643 



1 . 171 



16.49 



5-04 



.0710 



Period 2 



I 

2 

4 

5 

Average, period 2 



794 
746 
902 
681 



2.037 
1. 811 

1-739 
1. 491 



781 1.769 



-556 
.522 
.631 

-477 



•547 



1. 481 
1.289 
1. 108 
1 .014 



15-82 
15-18 
16.27 
17.66 



564 
5-15 
4-63 
4 56 



.0936 
.0849 
.0681 
-0574 



1 .222 



16.23 



•0753 









Period 3 










I 

2 

4 

5 


812 
778 
938 
744 


1.844 
1.694 

1-937 
1.802 


.568 
•545 
-657 
•521 


1 .276 
1. 149 

1.280 
1. 281 


15.18 
14.29 
15 96 
17.07 


5-72 
5.02 
4.61 
4.66 


.0840 
.0804 
.0802 
.0750 


Average, period 3 . . 


818 


1. 819 


-573 


1 .246 


15.62 


4-99 


.0798 



Conclusions from Bvdletin Ji. — Haecker's conclusions from the data 
given in Bulletin 7 1 of the Minnesota station are as follows : 

" I . Cows giving ordinary yields of milk and of butter-fat do not 
require the amount of protein called for in the standard rations. 

"2. The amount of milk that a cow gives daily, and its fat content, 
measure the amount of protein which the animal requires over and above 
that needed for maintenance. 

"3. There is a limit to the milk- and fat-producing power of a cow at 
any given time. Feeding more protein than she needs for this production 
and for her own support is of no advantage. 

"4. The excess of protein, with the corresponding excess of other 
nutrients, will tend to cause a cow to la}^ on flesh and thereby to shrink in 
inilk flow. 

"5. Grains ordinarily grown on the farni, fed in conjunction with such 
roughage as fodder corn, corn silage, timothy, and prairie hay, prox'ide 
ample protein for cows doing ordinary dairy work." 



68 



Bulletin 323 



Data in Bulletin jg oj the Minnesota station 
The investigations in regard to milk production are reported in this 
bulletin under four headings: 

1. Maintenance requirements. 

2. Nutrient requirements. 

3. Protein requirements. 

4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements. 

These topics will be discussed in order and the conclusions of Haccker in 
regard to each will be shown. 

/. Maintenance requirements. — Wolff's maintenance ration for 1,000 
pounds live weight is: dry matter 18 pounds, protein .7 pound, carbohy- 
drates 8 pounds, ether extract .1 pound. In order to test the accuracy of 
this standard, Haecker conducted three experiments with barren cows. 

As a result of the first experiment, made with two barren cows for a 
period of eighty-one days on a ration of 8 pounds of timothy hay and 
3 pounds of barley, the cows gained an average of .36 pound daily on a 
ration containing daily .004 pound more protein and .209 pound less 
carbohydrates. Therefore the ration was in excess of the amount actually 
needed for maintenance. 

The second experiment was conducted with two barren cows during the 

winter of 1896-189 7 and covered a period of one hundred days. One cow 

received daily 18 pounds and the other 14 pounds of corn fodder. The 

following table shows the average weight of the cows and the nutrients 

consumed by them daily: 

TABLE 7 



Cow 


Average 

weight 

(pounds) 


Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 


Protein 
(pounds) 


Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 


Fat 
(pounds) 


Alice 

Belle 


808 
1 ,010 


8.98 
923 


.297 

.277 


5-45 
5 08 


•38 
•37 


Average 




9. 10 


.287 ■;.27 


• "^/S 













The cows maintained their weights during the ex])criment except that 
during the month of February Belle was down to 987 loounds; she regained 
her weight, however, to an average of 1,010 pounds. Yet the physical 
appearance of the cows showed that they had not been sufficiently 
nourished even though they had maintained their live weights. 

During the winter of 1897-1898, in the third experiment, three cows 
were fed on maintenance rations of fodder corn, beets, and oil meal. The 
data cover the period from December 30 to April 11. Combining the 
results with two of these cows (the record of the third was thrown out 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



69 



because it was found that she had been suffering with a broken tooth) with 
data obtained from feeding one cow on a maintenance ration in 189 8- 1899, 
we have the following results: material consumed per 1,000 pounds live 
weight, dry matter 11.38 poimds, protein .63 pound, carbohydrates 5.75 
pounds, and fat .12 pound. 

Conclusions in regard to maintenance requirements. — Haecker concludes 
from the results of the above experiments that with cows at rest in stall in 
comfortable quarters, a ration of 11.5 pounds of dry matter containing 
.06 pound protein, .6 pound carbohydrates, and .01 pound ether extract 
per 100 pounds live weight is ample for a maintenance ration. However, 
he questions whether these amounts would be sufficient for cows receiving 
ordinary treatment in herds if the cows are allowed a certain amount 
of exercise each day. 

Pending further in^•estigation on the maintenance requirements of 
dairy cows, Haecker suggests the following for the maintenance allowance 
for producing animals: 12.5 pounds dry matter, containing .7 pound 
protein, 7 pounds carbohydrates, and .1 pound ether extract, for each 
1,000 pounds live weight. 

2. Nutrient requirements . — In making a study of the nutrient require- 
ments for milk production, Haecker discusses the following questions: 

A. Are the Lehmann factors approximately correct? 

B. Are they applicable to any and all grades or qualities of milk yielded? 

C. Will they be sufficient for heifers in milk? 

The results from questions A and B, only, will be discussed here, since 
they apply to the results of our own trial. 

Question A. The herd records and records of experiments conducted 
in 1894-1895 are cited to throw light on this question. The records cover a 
period of one hundred and fifty-four days. The cows were given a fixed 
ration. A full flow of milk and yield was obtained without gain or loss 
in body weight. The following table shows the nutrients used in the pro- 
duction of I pound of milk : 

TABLE 8 





Live 

weight 

(pounds) 


Protein 
(pounds) 


Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 


Fat 
(pounds) 


Milk 
produced 
(pounds) 


Daily average 

Daily average for mainte- 


956 


2.000 

.670 

I 330 

•051 

.081 


12.46 

6.69 

5-77 
.221 

.220 


.560 

•095 
.460 
.018 

.018 


26.09 


Daily average for milk . ... 

Nutrients to i pound milk . . 

Lehmann for i pound milk 

(when yield is 22 pounds 

















70 



Bulletin 323 



The results as shown in the table above are not materially different from 
Lehmann's standard except in amount of protein. 

The follomng winter, 1895-1896, the herd was composed of practically 
the same animals receiving on an average a daily allowance of 2.59 pounds 
of protein. Compared with 1894-189 5 the performance is as follows: 

TABLE 9 



Year 


Live 

weight 
(pounds) 


1 
Protein ST^?' ^^^ 
(P°-^^)ttnd?),^P°""^^) 


Milk 
produced 
(pounds) 


Percent- 
age of fat 
in milk 


Pounds 
of fat 
in milkj 


1894-1895 

1895-1896 


956 
980 


2.00 
2.59 


12.46 .56 
12.24 .68 


26.09 
25.71 


4. 10 
3-93 


1 .069 
I. on 



This table gives strong evidence that the amount of protein prescribed 
in the Lehmann standard is largely in excess of the amount needed for 
production. The cows yielded more milk and butter-fat during the \vinter 
that they recei\'ed 2 pounds of protein than they did the following winter 
on an allowance of 2.59 pounds of protein. 

Question B. In order to answer this question, Haecker has compiled a 

table from the records of mature cows whose productive powers had been 

developed to their fullest capacity by careful feeding and handling for 

several vears: 

TABLE 10 



Percentage 
of fat 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Ether Total 

extract nutrients 
(pounds) (pounds) 



Countess. . . 

Lou 

Topsy 

Olive 

Sweet Briar 
Houston . . . 



.036 
.040 
.042 
.044 
.052 
•057 



.012 
.014 
.014 
.016 
.018 
.019 



.208 

254 
.256 
.280 
.310 

336 



The figures in this table represent the average of one hundred and fifty- 
four consecutive days work for each cow. The table clearly indicates: 
first, that the amount of nutrients to i pound of milk increases with the 
improvement in quality of the milk but not in the same proportion; 
second, that, other things being equal, the richer the milk the more 
economical is the production of butter-fat. In order to show the rate of 
increase in nutrients required for the production of i pound of milk of 
different quaUties, the records of Houston and Countess are employed : 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 71 

TABLE II 



T-, , n <^ • Carbo- Ether 

Percentage Protein hydrates extract 
of fat (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) 



Houston 

Countess 

Difference 

Difference for .1 per cent fat. 



5-5 
2.5 
30 



•057 
.036 
.021 
.0007 



.26 
.16 
. 10 
■0033 



.019 
.012 
.007 
. 00023 



Taking the nutrients required for i pound of niilk containing 2.5 per 
cent fat as a basis and the nutrients required in addition for each .1 per 
cent fat increase, we can derive a feeding table. Such a table is given in 
the bulletin under review, but it is not deemed necessary to reproduce it 
here since the one in use by Haecker at the present time is slightly different 
and represents his latest ideas for this standard. This table is closely in 
accord with the nutrients used by mature cows in the herd not gaining nor 
losing in body weight, except that it provides rather more than was used 
by cows whose mills: tested between 3.5 and 4.5 per cent. From the study 
of question B it seems that the quality of milk is quite as important a 
factor in formulating a feeding standard or guide to feeding practice, as 
is quantity of milk yielded. 

Question C. It is not deemed necessary to report here the findings in 
regard to question C, inasmuch as they have no bearing on the experiment 
in hand. It is sufficient to say that in Haecker's opinion, borne out by his 
own experience, heifers in milk require more nutriment per pound of milk 
produced than do mature cows. This is a natural consequence because 
heifers must provide for growth of body. 

J. Protein requirements. — The third part of Bulletin 79 may now be 
studied. In the winter of 1901-1902, the feeding of the dairy herd was 
planned with the purpose of obtaining more data on protein requirements. 
The cows in the stable were naturally arranged in groups by partitions. 
The tables given are made up from the records produced by mature cows 
doing normal work. It was intended to maintain a fixed ratio between 
grain and roughage, but -in some cases a slight deviation had to be made so 
as to feed each cow to her full limit. This ratio as planned was five times 
as much corn silage as grain and half as much hay as grain. The grain 
ratios were : 

Group 1. Equal parts of corn, bran, and gluten meal. 
Group 2. Corn and bran four parts each, gluten meal one part. 
Group 3. Equal parts of corn, barley, and oats, except for one cow 
which received bran instead of oats. 



72 



Bulletin 323 



The composition of the rations as fed was as follows : 

TABLE 12 



Ration 


Protein 
(pounds) 


Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 


Ether 
extract 
(pounds) 


Nutritive 
ratio 


I 

2 


2.04 
1.68 
1.32 


11.79 
II 75 
II .76 


•53 
•57 
-50 


I :6.3 
I : 7.6 


3 


I 19.7 



The feeding began November 11, 1901, and continued without change 

until the morning of February 17, 1902, when a new supply of grain was 

fed and corn fodder was substituted for silage. With the exception of two 

cows whose records are considered for one or two weeks longer, the data 

given refer to this period between November 11, 1901, and February 16, 

1902, inclusive. When fed as above, the yield of the three groups was as 

follows in tenns of pounds of milk, percentage of fat, pounds of butter-fat, 

and pounds of total solids : 

TABLE 13 



Group 


Ration 


Milk 
(pounds) 


Percentage Pounds ' Total 
of fat of fat solids 
in milk in milk (pounds) 


I 

2 

3 


I 
2 
3 


27-77 
30.60 
26.84 


4-54 
3.80 
4.40 


1 .260 
1 . 164 
1. 182 


3-737 
3 719 
3-524 



Judging from yields of butter-fat and of milk, ration 3 was practically 
as potent as the other rations in that the product yielded bears a closer 
relation to total nutrients than to protein. 

In order to make a better comparison, if we multiply the fat in the food 
by 2.4 and add the protein and carbohydrates and call this amount the 
total nutriment, then multiply the butter-fat by 2.5 and add the solids- 
not-fat and call this amount the total product, we shall have a basis on 
which to compare the total nutriment and the total product yielded in the 
three groups. Such a comparison is as follows: 





TABLE 14 








Group 


Total 
nutriment 

daily 
(pounds) 


Total 
product 

daily 
(pounds) 


Net 
nutriment 

to I 
pound of 
product 
(pounds) 


I 


16.88 
16.28 
16.88 


6.208 
6. on 
6.260 


I 46 


2 


I .41 


•I 




1 .45 









Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



73 



By this arrangement it is clearly shown that the three groups yielded 
dairy products in proportion to the nutriment available for product, and 
not according to the protein supply; and that the amount of nutriment 
required for a pound of total product depended on the ratio of butter-fat 
to solids-not-fat. 

Comparing the rations used in studying the protein requirements for 
three winters (1895-1896, 1894-1895, and 1901-1902) with the Wolff- 
Lehmann standard, the following table is derived: 

TABLE 15 



Net nutrients 


I 895-1 896 
(pounds) 


I 894-1 895 
(pounds) 


1901-1902 

(pounds) 


Standard 

factors 

(pounds) 


Protein daily 


2.63 

•0755 
.2082 
.0224 
.3061 


2.09 
.0510 
.2211 
.0177 
.2898 


1.90 

•0375 
.1969 
.0156 
.2500 


2.50 
0818 


Protein to i pound milk 


Carbohydrates to i pound milk 

Ether extract to i pound milk 

Total net nutrients to i pound milk . . . 


.2400 
.0180 
•3398 



The Wolff-Lehmann factors seem particularly faulty in the assumption 
that it requires .081 pound of net protein to i pound of milk produced, 
and they do not recognize the fact that the nutrient requirements vary 
with the quality of the milk yielded. 

Reviewing the results obtained from section 3 of this bulletin, it appears : 

1. That the rations having a nutritive ratio of i : 7.6 and i :9.7, respec- 
tively, were as effective in the production of milk, butter-fat, and milk 
solids as was the ration having a nutritive ratio of i : 6.3. 

2 . That the protein required in milk production depends on the quantity 
and quality of the milk yield. 

3. That in the production of butter-fat, actually more but relatively less 
protein and other nutrients were required to a pound of butter-fat with 
cows giving milk containing a low percentage of fat. 

4. That in the production of milk solids, less nutrients were required to 
a pound with cows having a low percentage of butter-fat in their milk than 
with cows giving milk having a high percentage of butter-fat. 

4. Influence of stage of lactation on nutrient requirements. — It wdll be 
sufficient to give the summary under this heading, which also includes Pro- 
fessor Haecker's opinions up to the publication of this work: 

1. During the early stages of lactation, cows lose rapidly in body weight; 
of fifteen cows the average decrease per cow the first week was 49 pounds, 
and during fifty-six days there was a daily average loss of 2 pounds. 

2. During the time that the decrease in body weight takes place, cows 
yield dairy products in excess of the amount provided for by the food con- 



74 Bulletin 323 

sumed. The excess yield depends on the rate of loss in weight of body; in 
some instances it is more than twice the amount provided for by the avail- 
able nutriment. 

3. The excess yield of dairy products decreases gradually until about 
the eleventh week, when an equilibrium generally obtains between the 
nutriment consumed and the dairy products yielded, although in this 
respect cows differ: those of a pronounced dairy temperament taking less 
time, while those not strong in dairy temperament decrease more slowly 
in weight and require more time in which to reach normal work in milk 
production. Before such equilibrium is reached, the body fat, and pos- 
sibly other substances, contribute directly or indirectly to product. 

4. The normal net nutriment required for a pound of butter-fat is approx- 
imately 6.25 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk con- 
taining a low percentage of butter-fat and less for cows giving milk con- 
taining a high percentage of butter-fat. 

5. The normal net nutriment required to a pound of milk solids yielded 
is approximately 2.4 pounds, with a slight increase for cows yielding milk 
rich in butter-fat and less for cows giving milk containing a low percentage 
of butter-fat. 

6. When the nutriment available . daily for products and the products 
yielded daily are reduced to an approximate common value of energy, it is 
found that there is required about 1.75 pound of available nutriment to 
I pound of product; that is, of the available nutriment 43 per cent is 
expended in energy and 57 per cent is retained in the milk solids. 

7. The daily yield of butter-fat in excess of the nutriment supply, by 
virtue of an average daily loss per cow of 2 pounds in body weight, was 
.283 pound, being a sacrifice of 7 pounds in body weight to i pound of 
butter-fat yielded in excess of that provided for in the ration. 

8. When the normal working condition of body weight is reached, the 
nutriment required to a pound of butter-fat and to a pound of milk solids 
remains fairly constant for an indefinite time under proper management. 

The above conclusions finish Haecker's published work up to date, 
except for deductions from the results of the breed test at St. Louis in 
1904. Haecker sums up these results and applies his standard to them, 
and by allowing 3.2 pounds net nutriment per pound of gain in weight he 
accounts for the expenditure of the excess nutriment. It is not thought 
necessary to report this bulletin in the present paper. 

Some unpiiblisked data on Haecker's standard 
The feeding table, or standard, now in use by Haecker was seen by the 
author of this bulletin at the Graduate School of Agriculture held at 
Cornell University in 1908. Professor Haecker kindly gave a copy to the 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



75 



author. When this was compared with the standard as given on page 104 
of Bulletin 79 of the Minnesota station, it was noticed that the require- 
ments were slightly higher for milk low in percentage of butter-fat and 
slightly lower for milk ranging high in butter-fat. When a letter was 
sent to Professor Haecker asking the reason for this change, he kindly 
sent to the author the two tables given below, A and B, together \\4th a 
very careful letter of explanation from which the following notes are 
taken : 

In Table A is given the average daily summary for the Minnesota sta- 
tion herd for eight winters, " reduced to a daily average of dry matter con- 
sumed and digestible nutrients consumed, the total nutriment reduced to a 
starch equivalent, the nutriment calculated for maintenance, allowing 
.792 pound digestible starch equivalent for 100 pounds live weight, the 
amount left for product, the product yielded being the sum of the fat mul- 
tiplied by 2.2 and the solids-not-fat, and the net nutriment consumed to a 
unit of product yielded. 

"In the blank spaces following there is a double dash indicating that 
during the winter there was an equilibrium in the weight of the herd. If 
there is a plus, there is a gain; a minus sign indicates a loss. Taking an av- 
erage of the eight winters work it appears that there was required i .8 1 pound 
of net nutriment reduced to starch equivalent to produce one of product. 



TABLE A (16). 


Average Daily Summary of the Herd 


FOR 


Eight Winters 












Xutriment 


















Nutri- 
ment 








Net 


















Carbo- 




daily 


For 


For 

product 

B. F. X 

2.2 -1- 

S. N. F. 




nutri- 






Dry 


Pro- 


hy- 


Ether 


(Pro. + 


Product 


ment 






matter 


tein 


drates 


extract 


C. H. + 
[fat X 


tenance 
.792 per 
100 lbs. 


yielded 
daily 


to I 
pound 














2.2]) 




product 
















.07-.7--OI 










1894-5 


245 


2.00 


12.46 


.56 


1569 7-57 


*8.o8 


4-59 


1.74 


= 


1895-6 


23.9 


2.59 


12.24 


.67 


16.30 1 7.76 


8 


54 


4 


36 




95 


+ 


1902-3 


21.8 


1.92 


11.86 


.48 


14.83 


6.96 


7 


87 


4 


53 




73 




1903-4 


20.6 


1.97 


10.99 


.36 


13.74 


7.19 


6 


55 


4 


29 




5^ 


-f- Fed roots 


1904-5 


22.0 


1 .92 


11.96 


■ 50 


14.98 


7.09 


7 


89 


4 


3» 


I 


79 


= 


190S-6 


21.9 


i.6s 


12.57 


.50 


IS. 32 


6.90 


8 


42 


4 


34 




04 


+ 


1906-7 


23 


1-74 


13-14 


.63 


16.27 


7.40 


8 


87 


4 


56 




04 


+ 


1907-8 


23-7 


1 .69 


12.15 


.60 


15.16 


6.85 


8 


31 


4 


59 




81 


= 


Average 


22.7 


1.93 


12.17 


• 54 


15.286 


7.21S 


8.071 


4-455 


I.Si 





*This is probably 8.12, but is 8.08 in the original. 

" Table B gives first the organic composition of milk from the number of 
milkings indicated in the first column, the milkings ranging from 3 to 7 
per cent fat. In securing the average composition of any grade of milk, 
we only count .25 per cent above and no more than .25 per cent below 
the average; that is, the average of 3-per-cent milk was obtained from 658 
different milkings, none of which went b^low 2.75 or above 3.25. 



76 



Bulletin 323 



" Reducing the butter-fat to an equivalent of nitrogenous solids-not-fat 
and adding the product to the solids-not-fat, we have the following columns 
giving the components in one pound of milk ranging from .027 to .042 
pound of protein and .112 to .202 pound of non-nitrogenous compounds. 



TABLE B (17). Gravimetric Analysis 



Num- 
ber of 
milk- 
ings 


Organic composition of 
milk 


Components in i 
pound milk 


Feeding standard. Net nutriment 
to I pound milk 


Milk 
fat 


Protein, 
casein, 
and al- 
bumen 


Lactose 


Nitrog- 
enous 


Non- 
nitrog- 
enous 


Protein 

in milk 

+ SO per 

cent 


Carbo- 
hydrates 

in milk 

-1- 70 per 

cent 


13 per cent 
of carbo- 
hydrates 
as ether 
e.\tract 


658 

770 

840 

1,638 

1,442 

1,246 

546 

336 

182 


3.0% 

3 5 

4.0 

45 

S-O 

55 

6.0 

6.5 

7.0 


2 
2 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
4 
4 


7 
8 

I 
3 
4 
6 
8 
I 
2 


4.60 
4-75 
4-85 
4-97 
4.98 
4.92 
4.91 
4.90 
4.84 


.027 
.028 
.031 

■ 033 

■ 034 
.036 
.038 
.041 
.042 


. 112 
.124 
.136 
.149 
.160 
.170 
.181 
.192 
.202 


.04 

.042 

.047 

.049 

.051 

.054 

.057 

.061 

.063 


.19 
.21 
.23 
.25 

■ 27 
.29 
.31 

■ 33 
•34 


.014 
.016 
.018 
.019 
.021 
.022 
.023 

.025 

.026 



1 .426 

.310 



.464 



1.736 



Standard provides. 
Amount required. . 



1.42 
.464 
.405 



,184 X2.2=.40j 



3.289 



Excess . 



" Now, we have in Table A that it requires 1.81 pound of net nutriment 
to produce one of product. Such being the case, it follows that .81 is 
expended in the energy required for the production of milk solids. This 
energy can be supplied by carbohydrates so it is not necessary to provide 
more protein over and above that required for the product than wall pro- 
vide all contingencies in waste in the process of digestion and transloca- 
tion, fetal growth, and variations in the composition of both feed and 
milk, and increase the carbohydrates in the ration proportionately to 
make the total nutriment provide practically what is required in Table A." 

Professor Haecker then says in his letter: "I am satisfied that any 
surplus ranging from 30 to 50 per cent over and above what appears in 
the milk will answer for ordinary milk production. This I have found by 
actual experiment. (See earlier results as given in this paper on pages 
69 to 71. — Author.) I desire to make sure there is enough protein, so I 
provide protein for maintenance and protein for milk plus 50 j^cr cent 
protein in the milk. Then I add enough to carbohydrates to make the 
amount required for milk production, seeing that the ration of carbo- 
hydrates to ether extract is about what is found in our American Feeding 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



77 



Stufifs used for milk production. Adding together the total non-nitro- 
genous components and the various nutrients in the milk, we find there is 
1.736 pound. Doing the same with the nutrients in the feeding standard, 
having reduced the ether extract to an equivalent of carbohydrates, we 
find that there are 3.289 pounds, and that the standard provides 1.89 
unit to a unit of product in milk solids, while the amount used by the herd 
as shown by Table A is 1.81, the standard being in excess about .08 of 
nutriment to each pound of product." 

If we refer back to the method of building the feeding tables on page 7 1 , 
taken from Bulletin 79, and compare results for any one set of conditions, 
we will find " that the uniformity in the two methods as to results," using 
Haecker's words again, " are truly wonderful." 

Haecker calculated the new tables of requirements to meet the objec- 
tions of many investigators to the first tables on the ground that his data 
for the tables in Bulletin 79 were very meager. 

Having now covered all the ground that serves as a basis for Haecker's 
arguments, his opinions and conclusions may be best summed up 
by giving in full his table of feeding standards as he uses them in his 
classroom : 



TABLE 18. Haecker's Standard for Milk Production 



Ca 
Protein ^^^ 


rbo- 
rates 


.0700 


700 


.0390 


168 


.0396 


172 


.0402 


176 


.0408 


180 


.0414 


i«5 


.0420 


189 


.0426 


193 


.0432 


197 


.0438 


202 


.0444 


206 


.0450 


211 


.0456 


215 


.0462 


220 


.0468 


224 


•0474 


228 


.0480 


233 


.0486 


237 


.0492 


241 


.0498 


245 


.0504 


249 


.0510 


253 


.0516 


257 


.0522 


260 



Fat 



For maintenance, per 100 lbs. 



For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 



pound m 
pound m 
pound m: 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 



2.5 
2.6 
2.7 
2.8 
2-9 
3-0 
3-1 
3-2 
3-3 
34 
3-5 
3-6 
3-7 
3-8 
3-9 
4.0 
4.1 
4.2 

4-3 
4.4 

4-5 
4.6 

4-7 



per cent fat. 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 



.0100 

.0120 
.0121 
.0124 
.0127 
.0130 

•0133 
.0136 
.0139 
.0142 
.0146 
.0149 
.0152 

•0155 
.0158 
.0161 
.0164 
.0167 
.0170 
.0173 
.0176 
.0179 
.0181 
.0184 



78 



Bulletin 323 
TABLE 18 (continued) 



Protein ^a 


rbo- 
rates 


.0700 


700 


.0528 


264 


■0534 


267 


.0540 


271 


.0546 


275 


■0552 


278 


■0558 


282 


.0564 


285 


.0570 


289 


.0576 


292 


.0582 


296 


.0588 


300 


•0594 


303 


.0600 


307 


.0606 


310 


.0612 


314 


.0618 


317 


.0624 


322 


.0630 


325 


.0636 


328 


.0642 


331 


.0648 


335 


.0654 


339 


.0660 


341 



Fat 



For maintenance, per 100 lbs . 



For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 



pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk; 
pound milk, 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk- 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 
pound milk 



4.8 
4-9 
50 
51 

5-2 
5-3 
5-4 
5-5 
5-6 
5-7 
5-8 
5-9 
6.0 
6.1 
6.2 

6.3 
6.4 

6.5 
6.6 
6.7 
6.8 
6.9 
7.0 



per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 
per cent fat . 



.0100 

.0186 
.0189 
.0191 
.0194 
.0196 
.0199 
.0201 
.0204 
.0206 
.0209 
.0211 
.0214 
.0216 
.0219 
.0222 
.0224 
.0227 
.0229 
.0232 
.0234 
.0237 
.0239 
.0242 



H. P. armsby's feeding standard 
Dr. H. P. Armsby has done much to further the work on animal 
nutrition in America, and to-day he is perhaps better known than any 
other nutrition expert in the country. He has become thus well known 
through two textbooks on animal nutrition,^ the first a general textbook 
and the second a scientific treatise on the subject. Besides these two text- 
books he has published a number of bulletins- from the Pennsylvania 
State College Agricultural Experiment Station, where he began work as 
Director of the station in 1892. Since the building of the respiration 
calorimeter at the Pennsylvania station, the animal nutrition work has 
been in cooperation with the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United 
States Department of Agriculture. It will not be necessary to review 

> H. P. Armsby. " Manual of Cattle Feeding ' ' and " Pinciples of Animal Nutrition." 

2H. P. Armsby: 

" Relative Values of Feeding Stuffs." Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 71. 

" Feed as a Source of Energy." Penn. State College Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 84. 

" Feeding for Meat Production." U, S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. io8. 

H. P. Armsby and T. Augustus Fries: 

"The Available Energy of Timothy Hay." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. 51. 

" Energy Values of Red Clover Hay and Maize Meal." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. 74- 

" The Available Energy of Red Clover Hay." U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Anim. Indus. Bui. loi. 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 79 

hero all the bulletins that are cited in the footnote on the preceding page. 
In bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in Farmers' Bul- 
letin 346 of the United States Department of Agriculture is contained 
subject-matter of interest in this connection. In these bulletins Armsby's 
attitude toward the subject of feeding as it stands to-day is explained. 

The results in bulletins 71 and 84 of the Pennsylvania station and in 
Farmers' Bulletin 346 can now be discussed. The computation of rations, 
up to the work of Armsby in this country and of Kellner in Germany, has 
always been placed on the amount of digestible nutrients in the given 
fodders, as has been clearly shown in these pages. Now Armsby shows in 
the bulletins cited that this view is inaccurate and he proceeds to show the 
reasons for his opinion, taking as a basis the results on the maintenance 
value of red-clover hay, timothy hay, and maize meal as shown by work 
on these feeds with the respiration calorimeter. He wishes to place the 
relative value of the feeding-stuffs on the production values of the different 
foods. First, before comparing the different foods, we must explain what 
is meant by the " production value " of a food. 

When a foodstuff is birrned, it yields a certain amount of heat or chem- 
ical energy usually measured in calories,* or in units of 1,000 Calories 
called therms by Armsby. Necessarily a large part of this energy, when 
the foodstuff is burned in the animal, is lost in the feces and urine and in 
the combustible gases from the intestinal tract. When this lost energy 
is subtracted from the chemical energy the resulting energy is called the 
" fuel value " of the food. Many writers have used the fuel values of 
foodstuffs in showing their relative values, but since these fuel values are 
determined in almost exactly the same way as are the digestible nutrients 
they have no greater value than have the amounts of digestible nutrients 
in a food to show its value in nutrition. 

Armsby goes a step further and defines the term " production value of 
a food," showing that only a part of the fuel value of a given foodstiiff can 
go for production. He defines the " production value " of a food as that 
part which can really go toward the production of meat in mature fattening 
animals, for the production of milk, and for growth in growing animals. 
He shows that these production values are not in the same relation in 
timothy hay, clover hay, and corn meal as the fuel values and, therefore, 
the digestible nutrients. 

Then we find also another term, namely, "maintenance value." Armsby 
finds that more energy can be derived from the fuel value of a food 
merely in maintaining the animal than in the production and storing of 
the energy as product ; therefore the maintenance value of a food is greater 

* A calorie (abbreviation small " c") is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature 
of I gram of distilled water i degree Centigrade. 1,000 calories = I Caloric (abbreviation capital 
" C"). 1,000 Calories^ i therm (abbreviation " T."). 



8o 



Bulletin 323 



than its production value but less than its fuel value. This is obvious, 
since extra energy would be required to store food as extra weight over 
that required merely to replace some body material or merely to be burned 
in the body in order to maintain the body without gain in weight. Tables 
ig and 20, giving the comparative values of timothy hay and corn meal, 
will show clearly what is intended by the above explanation : 



TABLE 19. Digestible Nutrients, Computed 

Values 


iJ'uEL Values, and Actual Fuel 




Nutrients 
per 100 
pounds 

(pounds) 


Computed 

fuel 

value 

(therms) 


Actual 

fuel 

value 

(therms) 


Absolute values 
Timothy hay 


47-1 
81.9 

1 .00 
1-74 


87-5 
152-5 

1 .00 

1-74 


77.7 


Corn meal 


130.8 
1 .00 


Relative values 
Timothy hay 


Corn meal 


1.68 







The above table shows that the computed fuel values and actual fuel 
values are not different from each other to any extent. The next table 
will show the relative values as to maintenance and production in 100 
pounds of timothy hay and corn meal: 



TABLE 20. 



Actual Fuel Values, Maintenance Values, and Production 
Values per 100 Pounds 



Actual 

fuel 

values 

(therms) 



Mainte- 
nance 
values 

(therms) 



Produc- 
tion 
values 
(therms) 



Absolute values 

Timothy hay 

Corn meal 

Relative values 

Timothy hay 

Corn meal 



77-7 
130.8 



1 .00 
1.68 



48.9 
loi .6 



1 .00 
"2.11 



25 9 
6y 7 



I 00 
2.69 



* From the 



values above, this value would be 2.08. The original reference gives it as 2.11. 



From this table we see that com meal has relativcl}^ a much greater 
value, both for maintenance and production, than is shown by the actual 
fuel value (or digestible nutrients). 

Not many of the production values of American feeding-stufls 
have been computed, because of the amount of labor connected with 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



8i 



such a calculation with the respiration calorimeter. In Farmers' Bulletin 
346 appears a table worked out by Armsby from data secured from Kellner 
at the Moeckern Experiment Station in Germany. In Armsby's opinion 
these production values of Kellner 's, while not absolutely correct, are 
more nearly correct than our ordinary tables of digestible nutrients. The 
table is given on page 15, Farmers' Bulletin 346. 

As for protein requirements, in Armsby's opinion, so far as mainte- 
nance is concerned, the total amount required is so small relatively that 
it is only when feeds very poor in protein are used that there is danger of 
its falling short. A proper supply of protein is, of course, indispensable 
and enough in excess of maintenance must be furnished to provide for the 
product when productive animals are under consideration. The amounts 
necessary for given purposes will be shown in the discussion of Armsby's 
standard (page 119). 

The feeding standard for milk 
In Table 21 are given Armsby's maintenance requirements for cattle, 
which apply to milch cows as well as to other mature cattle : 



TABLE 21. Maintenance Requirements for Cattle 



Live weight (pounds) 




Energy 
(therms) 



150 

250 

500 

750 

1,000 

1,250 

1,500 



70 
40 
80 

95 
00 
00 
90 



These apply, for the given live weight, for one animal one day. Strict 
accuracy is not claimed for these figures by Armsby, but he thinks them 
substantially correct. Under the requirements for milk production, it is 
thought that .3 therm of production value in the feed is ample for i pound 
of average milk containing about 13 per cent total solids and 4 per cent 
butter-fat. 

In regard to the protein requirements, it seems, in Annsby's opinion, 
that milk production can be kept up, for a time at least, on an amount of 
protein very slightly exceeding that found in the milk produced, added to 
the maintenance requirement. In the case of average milk this would 



82 



Bulletin 323 



call for about .032 pound dijjjcstiblc protein for each pound of milk pro- 
duced. For the production of a liberal supply of milk, a little more protein 
than this would seem advantageous. Therefore Armsby recommends 
.05 pound of digestible protein for each pound of milk. 

Amisby suggests that the requirements of .3 therm of production value 
and .05 pound of digestible protein for i pound of milk might be increased 
for richer milk or decreased for poorer milk to advantage; but he does not 
attempt any systematic arrangement to meet the requirements for different 
grades of milk. 

With this explanation of the standards that have been published on 
milk production, we may now consider the application of the two last 
named in the experiments at this station. 



DATA OF CORNELL EXPERIMENTS. WINTERS OF 1909-I9IO AND igiO-IQII 

The experiments in question were planned with the purpose of applying 
Haecker's feeding standard to milch cows. However, the data are in 
such form that some knowledge of the application of Armsby's standard 
can be gained. 

Data of the winter of igog-igio 

Twelve cows were used. They were divided into three groups of four 

cows each, the groups being so arranged that cows of different breeds, 

quality of milk, and quantity of milk would be in the same group. In 

Table 2 2 is given a tabular statement of data regarding the cows in each 

group : 

TABLE 22. Cows in Experiment of 1909-19 10 



Breed 



Age 
(years) 



Last 

calf 

(1909) 



Average 

live weight 

(pounds) 



Group A 

Cornelia Marvclla 

Garnet Delta 

Gipsy 

Glista Eta 

Group B 

Glista Omicron 

Glista Sigma 

Hector's Berta 

Lady Clay 

Group C 

Glista Chi 

Glista Omega 

Susanna 

Taflfy's Anna . 



J 

J 

Gr. H 

H 



H 
H 

J 
S 



H 
H 
J 
J 



5 

5 

10 

5 



Oct. 6 
Sept. 19 
Sept. 19 
Oct. 17 



Nov. 9 
Sept. 13 
Oct. 22 
Sept. 20 



Sept. 2 
Sept. 4 
Sept. 19 
Sept. 23 



860 

925 

985 

1. 1 75 



1,150 
1 ,090 

815 
1,050 



1-035 

I ,050 

910 

940 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



83 



The cows were fed a ration of mixed hay (one half clover and one half 
mixed grasses), corn silage, mangels, and grain mixtiires composed of 
distillers' dried grains (Ajax flakes), hominy chop, old-process linseed 
meal, and wheat bran. The digestible composition of the fodders, as given 
in Table 23, was determined from actual analysis by the application of 
the digestion coefficients from Experiment Station Bulletin 11 of the 
United States Department of Agriculture, and from " Feeds and 
Feeding " by W. A. Henry: 

TABLE 23. Composition of Fodders per 100 Pounds. 1909-1910 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds^ 



Fiber 
(poundS; 



Nitro- 
gen- 
free 
extract 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Value 
per 100 
pounds 



Mixed hay 

Corn silage 

Mangels 

Distillers' dried 

grains 

Hominy 

Oil meal 

Wheat bran 



4.62 
1 .90 
1.32 

19-47 
7.60 

32 32 
12.49 



16.86 
3 04 
0.55 

6.32 
3 46 
4-49 
2.13 



28.62 
II . II 
10.63 

39.61 

53 00 
28.91 

38.37 



1 .11 
0.62 
0.03 

9-94 
6.82 
4. II 
3A2 



34 50 

16.56 

4.62 

79 23 

*88 . 84 

78.92 

48.23 



$0.60 
0.1125 
0.20 

1.50 
1. 125 

1-75 
1-25 



♦ The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers' Bulletin 346. 
in corn is used instead. 



The therms energy 



The grain mixtures used in 1909-19 lo were as follows: 

Mixture i 



Feeds 


Constituents in mixture i 


600 lbs. hominy chop 

200 lbs. wheat bran 

100 lbs. distillers' dried grains 

100 lbs. oil meal 


92 . 50 per cent dry matter 
12.24 per cent digestible protein 

3 . 59 per cent digestible fiber 
46 . 32 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 

6.17 per cent digestible fat 
78 . 77 therms energy 



The cost of 100 pounds of mixture i was $1.25. 



Mixture 2 



Feeds 


Constituents in mixture 2 


200 lbs. hominy chop 

200 lbs. wheat bran 

500 lbs. distillers' dried grains 

100 lbs. oil meal 


92 . 80 per cent dry matter 
16.99 per cent digestible protein 

4.73 per cent digestible fiber 
40.97 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 

7 . 42 per cent digestible fat 
74.92 therms energy 



The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 2 was Si -40. 



84 



Bulletin 323 



The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be between 
1 : 6 and i : 7 except when group B was fed mixture 2 . 

Group A was fed mixture i all through the experiment according to the 
general plan of feeding practiced at the experiment station, that is, all 
that each individual cow would take care of and eat up clean each day. 
Group B was fed mixture i during the first and second periods, and mix- 
tiu"e 2 during the third period. During the second period, however, it 
was endeavored so to arrange the feeding of group B that each cow would 
be fed the exact amount of nutriment called for by Haecker's standard 
according to her production. During the third period, group B was to be 
fed the same total nutriment as in the second period, but the ration was 
to have a narrower nutritive ratio, hence the change to mixture 2 . Group 
C was fed mixture i in all three periods; but in the first period group C 
was to be fed nutriment in accordance with Haecker's standard, in the 
second period as much as each cow would eat up clean with good appe- 
tite, and in the third period all that the individual cows could possibly take 
without " going off feed." 

Each period was six weeks in length and each followed directly after 

the preceding. The data from only the last five weeks of each period are 

taken into account, since it took the first week of each period for the cows 

to become adjusted to whatever change .may have been made in their 

ration.* The quantity of food consumed by each animal during each 

period is shown in tables 24, 25, and 26, one table being given to each 

group : 

TABLE 24. Feed Record of Group A. 1909-1910 



Cow 



Period 



Hay 
(pounds) 



Silage 
(pounds 



Mangels 
(pounds) 



Grain 

(pounds) 



Cornelia . 



Garnet Delta. 



Gipsy. 



Eta. 



316 
350 
350 

229 
280 
280 

316 
350 
350 

316 
350 
350 



775 
710 
700 

700 
700 
700 

1,050 
1,050 
1,050 

1 ,070 
1,125 

875 



600 
700 
550 

700 
700 
570 

700 
700 
700 

700 
700 
580 



303 
265 
276 

315 
315 
315 

385 
385 
385 

420 

420 
378 



Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture i 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture I 

Mixture i 
Mixture I 
Mixture i 

Mixture I 
Mixture i 
Mixture I 



* These plans did not materialize, however, since the check analysis of the feeding-stuffs when the 
results came from the chemist showed that the silage and tlie mangels contained much more digestible 
matter than was planned for, the plans being based on the average American composition tables given 
in Henry's " Feeds and Feeding." Therefore, groups B and C, when they were supposed to be receiving 
Haecker's standard, were actually getting amounts 5 to is per cent in excess of that standard. 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 85 

TABLE 25. Feed Record of Group B. 1909-1910 



Cow 



Hay Silage 

(pounds) (pounds) 



Mangels 
(pounds) 


Grain 
(pounds) 


700 
700 
590 


420 
455 
319 


700 
700 
700 


420 
420 
385 


700 
700 
660 


350 
326 
264 


700 
700 
700 


385 
350 
315 



Omicron . 



Sigma . 



Hector's Berta . 



Lady Clay. 



316 
350 
350 

316 
350 
350 

316 
350 
350 

229 

280 
280 



1,225 

1,225 

840 

1,225 
1,225 
1,225 

875 
875 
875 

875 
875 
875 



Mixture I 
Mixture I 
Mixture 2 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture 2 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture 2 

Mixture i 
Mixture I 
Mixture 2 



TABLE 26. Feed Record of Group C. 1909-1910 



Cow 



Period 



Hay 

(pounds) 



Silage 
(pounds) 


Mangels 
(pounds) 


Grain 
(pounds) 


1,225 
1,225 
1,245 


700 
700 
700 


280 
350 
368 


1,225 
1,225 
1,060 


700 
700 
550 


315 
305 
332 


865 
635 
875 


700 
640 
700 


385 
298 

315 


875 

875 

1,050 


700 
700 
700 


420 
385 
384 



Chi. 



Omega . 



Susanna. 



Taffy's Anna . 



316 
350 
350 

316 
350 
350 

229 
280 
280 

229 

280 
280 



Mixture i 
Mixture I 
Mixture i 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture i 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture i 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture i 



The constituents in the food consumed by the cows are given in tables 
27, 27a, 28, 28a, 29, and 29a; two tables to each group. Here also are 
shown the amounts of the different constituents provided by Haecker's 
and Armsby's standards in contrast with the amounts of the different 
constituents actually consumed by the animals. The data given in the 
column headed " Total nutriment " are obtained by multiplying the fat 
by 2 J and adding the carbohydrates and protein. 

In determining the amount of constituents required for product in 
Haecker's standard, the nearest .05 per cent of fat is used (Table 18); 
that is, 5.37 per cent fat is used as 5.35 per cent, 5.24 per cent as 5.25 
per cent. 



86 



Bulletin 323 



In determining the requirements for maintenance according to Armsby's 
standard (Table 21), the Hve weight is used as the nearest 25, 50, 75, or 100 
pounds, and for each 25 pounds above the amount given in the table .01 
pound protein and . i therm per day and per head is added until the actual 
live weight coincides with the next amount given in the table. 

TABLE 27. Constituents Fed Group A, 1909-1910, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



Amount fed. 



Dry I Protein 
matter | (pounds) 
(pounds) 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

849 lbs. weight 

For product: 

849.3 lbs. milk, 5.37 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



876.47 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Cornelia, Period r 

74-34 1 471 .69 



20.80 

47.6s 



68.4s 



27 . 20 I 607 . 23 
by Haecker 
208.01 



241 .20 



2.97 
16.99 



19.96 



235 49 
327.08 



Protein 
(pounds) 



S62.S7 



Therms 



74 34 I S04 03 

by Armsby 
15.75 



42 -47 



58.22 



196.00 
254 79 



450.79 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

868 lbs. weight 

For product : 

756.9 lbs. milk, 5.24 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



872.83 



Cornelia, Period 2 
71.34 I 470.16 



42.01 



63.28 



34 85 
by Haecker 



424.59 



597.41 

240.77 
287.67 



18.03 



528.44 



7134 I 479 63 
by Armsby 



15-75 
37.85 



196 00 
227.07 



53.60 423.07 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

879 lbs. weight 

For product: 

724.1 lbs. milk, 5.31 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



85s 38 



Cornelia, Period 3 



70.51 



40.40 



61.94 



457. SI I 25.43 I 585.24 

by Haecker 
215.36 3 08 243.83 



204. 20 



419 56 



14.41 



277 .02 



520.85 



70.51 I 479 74 

by Armsby 
15-75 I 196.00 



36.21 



SI. 96 



217.23 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

913 lbs. weight 

For product: 

630.6 lbs. milk, 6.19 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



803.61 



Garnet Delta, Period i 

71.68 I 438.58 I 26.53 I 569.95 
by Haecker 

3 20 



22.37 

38.59 
60.96 



223.69 

198.01 
421.70 



14.00 



253 26 

268.10 
521.36 



71. 63 I 475 63 

by Armsby 
15 75 196.00 



31-53 



47.28 



189 18 
385.18 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 27 {continued) 



87 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 

(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — - 
For maintenance: 

930 lbs. weight 

For product : 

628.8 lbs. milk, 6.48 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



851.18 



Garnet Delta, Period 2 

74 04 I 461.78 I 27.10 I 596.79 
by Haecker 

3-29 



23 01 
39.61 



62.62 



230.06 
204.36 



434 42 



14.40 



17.69 



260.47 
276.37 



536.84 



74-04 I 493 •'■' 

by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 
31-44 



48-94 



188.64 



398.64 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

954 lbs. weight 

For product : 

647.8 lbs. milk, 6.54 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



829.50 



Garnet Delta, Period 3 

72.32 I 447.25 I 27.06 
by Haecker 



33-37 

41 .01 



64.38 



233.73 
211.83 



445.56 



3-34 
14.96 



18.30 



580.45 

264.62 
286.50 



551.12 



72.32 I 487 24 

by Armsby 
17.50 210.00 



32.39 



49.89 



194-34 



Amount fed i , 040 . 44 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

964 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1.235-3 lbs. milk, 3.8 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Gipsy, 


Period i 




90.91 


562.71 


33.98 1 




by Haecker 


23.62 


236.18 


3-37 


57.81 


276.71 


19-52 


81.43 


512.89 


22.89 



730.07 

267.38 
378.44 



645.82 



90.91 I 618.90 
by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 
61.77 



79-27 



370-39 



580.59 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

977 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,289.2 lbs. milk, 3.98 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,072 16 



Gipsy, Period 2 

92.48 I 578.17 I 3436 I 747.96 
by Haecker 



23-94 
61.88 



85.82 



239 37 



300.38 



3-42 



21 . 14 



24.56 



409.82 



680.83 



92.48 I 630.63 
by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 
64.46 



81.96 



386.76 



596.76 



Amount fed '' i .o'J2 . 16 



Required — 

For maintenance: 

1,001 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,252.9 lbs. milk. 4.12 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Gipsy, Period 3 

92.48 I 578.17 I 3436 I 747.96 
by Haecker 



24.52 ( 245.2s 



60.89 
85-41 



296.94 
S42 - 19 



3 50 



24.42 



277-65 

404 . 90 
682. 55 



92.48 I 630.63 
by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 

62.65 
80.15 



375-87 
585-87 



Amount fed. 



Bulletin 323 
TABLE 27 {concluded) 



Dry 
matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

i,i6.j lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,320.1 lbs. milk, 3.2 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,078.01 



Eta, Period i 
95.58 I 583.02 I 36.26 I 760.19 ( 95.58 I 649.80 



28.49 
57.03 



85.52 



by Haecker 

4.07 



284.94 
260.06 



545-00 



322.59 
358.38 



680.97 



by Armsby 

227.50 



19-25 
66.01 



85.26 



396.03 



623 . 53 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,193 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1 ,264.8 lbs. milk, 3.32 per 
cent fat 



Tot^. 



I, 124.02 



Eta, Period 2 
98.20 I 606.25 I 36.99 I 787.68 
by Haecker 



29.23 
55.40 



292.29 I 4.17 
255-49 17.96 



84.63 547.78 22.13 682.20 



330.90 
351.30 



98.20 I 670.66 

by Armsby 
21.00 I 245.00 

63-24 379.44 



.24 624.44 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,202 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,210.2 lbs. milk, 3.4 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Eta, Period 3 
86.73 I 536.49 I 32.81 I 697.04 

by Haecker 
29.45 294-49 4-21 333 41 



53-73 



83.18 



249.30 



543 ■ 79 



17.67 



342.79 



676.20 



86.73 I 590.54 
by Armsby 



60.51 



81.51 



245.00 
363 • 06 



608 . 06 



TABLE 27a. Average Constituents Fed Group A, 1909-1910, and Require- 
ments According to Standards 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Nutritive 
ratio 



Percent- 
age of 

total nu- 
triment 
above 

standard 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Percent- 
age of I 

therms 

above 

standard 



Period I 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 2 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 3 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 



83.13 
74 09 



84.01 
74 09 



80.51 
73.73 



666.86 
602.68 



682.46 
607.08 



: 7.0 
7.1 



7.1 
7.2 



10.6 



12.4 



652.67 i 1:7.1 

607 .68 1:7.2 



7.4 



by Armsby 
by Armsby 
by Armsby 



83.13 
67.51 



84.01 
67.18 



80.51 
65.88 



562 . 09 
510.02 



568.54 
510.73 



H7.04 
502 . 88 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



89 



TABLE 28. Constituents Fed Group B, 1909-1910, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



Amount fed. 



Dry 

matter 

(pounds) 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,117 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,593-4 lbs. milk, 3.35 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,178.28 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 

(pounds) 



70.27 



97 64 



273 67 



325.05 



598.72 



22.94 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Omicron. Period i 

98.53 I 604.94 I 37.23 I 787.24 
by Haecker 



26.8s 



309.84 
446.93 



756.77 



Therms 



98.53 I 675.53 
by Armsby 

227.50 



19.25 
79.67 



98.92 



478.02 



705.52 



Amount fed. 



1,182.38 



Required — 

For maintenance: 

1,167 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,497-7 lbs. milk, 3.65 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Omicron, Period 2 
104.38 1 637.87 I 39.77 
by Haecker 

4.08 



28.59 
68.74 



285.92 
326.50 



97-33 612.42 



23.06 



831.73 

323 69 

447.13 



770.82 



104.38 I 714.84 
by Armsby 



74.89 



94.14 



449.31 



676.81 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,178 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,215.1 lbs. milk, 3.84 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Omicron, Period 3 

94.12 I 489.79 1 32.95 I 658.05 
by Haecker 



28.86 
57.23 



288.61 

274.61 



86.09 563.22 



326.74 



19.44 i 375.58 



23 56 I 702.32 



94.12 I 526.26 

by Armsby 
21.00 I 245.00 



60.76 



364 . S3 



81.76 



609.53 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,048 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1.393-7 lbs. milk, 3.74 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,118.28 



Sigma, Period r 

98.53 1 604.94 i 37.23 I 787.24 
by Haecker 



25.68 
64.81 



90.49 



256.76 



309.40 



566.16 



3.67 



290.70 



714.14 



)8.53 1 675.53 
by Armsby 



69.69 



87.19 



628.11 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,091 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,344.5 lbs. milk, 3.93 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Sigma, Period 2 
100.10 I 620.40 I 37-6i I 805.1 
by Haecker 

3.82 



26.73 

64.13 
90.86 



267.30 

310.58 
577.88 



21 .92 



25-74 



302 . 63 

424.03 
■726.66 



100.10 I 687.26 
by Armsby 



67 .23 
84.73 



403 - 35 
613-35 



go 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 28 (continued) 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,110 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,270.5 lbs. milk, 4.09 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,118.78 



Sigma, Period 3 
114.10 I 586.72 I 40.27 I 791-43 
by Haecker 



61.75 



88.95 



271.9s 
301. II 



573.06 



307.88 
410.61 



114. 10 I 644.67 
by Armsby 

227.50 



19.25 
63.53 



718.49 



82.78 



.381.15 



608.65 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

807 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1.058.3 lbs. milk, 5.46 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Hector's Berta, Period i 



962.60 



83.31 

19.77 
60.01 



520.48 I 30.75 i 672.98 
by Haecker 



303.73 



21.48 



223.84 
412.07 



79.78 501.4s 



24.30 635.91 



83.31 I 562.37 

by Armsby 
14.00 173 as 



52.92 



66.92 



3 1 7 49 



490 . 74 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

818 lbs. weight 

For product: 

965.2 lbs. milk, 5.71 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Hector's Berta, Period 2 



81.94 

20.04 
56.17 



76.21 



523.95 I 29.64 

by Haecker 
200.41 

285.70 



486.11 



672.58 

226.89 
387.25 



614.14 



81.94 I S5S.09 
by Armsby 

173 25 



14.00 
48.26 



62.26 



289.56 



462.81 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

812 lbs. weight 

For product: 

936.9 lbs. milk, 5-43 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



908 . 89 



Hector's Berta, Period 3 

86.36 I 477.43 1 29.11 I 629.29 

by Haecker 
19.89 



S3. 12 



198.94 
268 . 89 



467.83 



2.84 
19. 02 



225.22 
364.81 



I . 86 590 . 03 



Amount fed 

Required — 
For maintenance: 

1 ,004 lbs. weight 

For product : 

965.9 lbs. milk. 3.81 per 
cent fat 



Total 



913.83 



Lady Clay, Period i 
83.57 I 498.37 I 31.93 I 653.78 
by Haecker 



24.60 



45-20 
69.80 



245.98 

216.36 
462 . 34 



3. SI 



IS. 26 



278.48 



295.90 



574.38 



86.36 I 494 10 
by Armsby 

173.25 



14.00 
46.85 



60.85 



281 .07 



454.32 



83.57 I 559.84 
by Armsby 



48.30 
65.80 



289.77 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 28 (concluded) 



91 



Dry 
matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



1 

Lady Clay, Period 2 
81.6s I S04.11 I 30.35 I 6S4-OS 

by Haecker 

362 



Protein 

(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,03s lbs. weight. 
For product: 

899.S lbs. milk, 
cent fat 



Total . 



2S.36 
43.18 



253 58 
209. s8 



54 463 . 16 



I4-7S 



287.08 
28s. 95 



18.37 573-03 



81 -65 I 549-8S 
by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 
44.98 



62.48 



269.8s 



479.8s 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,080 lbs. weight . 
For product: 

852.1 lbs. milk, 
cent fat 



Total . 



897.59 



Lady Clay, Period 3 
92.31 I 47338 I 



26.46 



41.67 



68.13 



32.02 
by Haecker 
264.60 3.78 



203.6s 



468.25 



14 . 40 



637.74 



92.31 I 509-99 
by Armsby 

2IO.O0 



17.50 
42.61 



60. 11 



255.63 



465.63 



TABLE 28a. Average Constituents Fed Group B, 1909-1910, and Requirements 

According to Standards 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Nutritive 
ratio 



Percent- 
age of 
total nu- 
triment 
above 
standard 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Percent- 
age of 
therms 
above 

standard 



Period i 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 2 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 3 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 



90.98 
84-43 



92.02 
83.24 



96.72 
79.04 



725-31 
670.30 



740.87 
671.16 



679.13 
647.03 



1:7.0 
1:6.9 



I : 7-0 
1:7.1 



1:6.0 
1:7.2 



I by Armsby 



[by Armsby 



by Armsby 



90.98 
79.71 



92 .02 
75-90 



96.72 
71-37 



618.29 
581.04 



626.76 
558.21 



543.75 
534. S3 



6.4 



TABLE 29. Constituents Fed Group C, 1909-19 10, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 

nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,025 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,160.7 lbs. milk, 3.37 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



988.78 



Chi, Period i 
5I-3I I 535-07 I 28.60 



2S-II 

51. 18 
76.29 



by Haecker 
251.12 



236.78 
487.90 



3-59 

16.71 
20.30 



680.73 

284.31 

325.56 
609.87 



I. 31 1 562.21 
by Armsby 

210.00 



17.50 

58.04 
75-54 



348.21 
558-21 



92 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 29 {continued) 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Total 
Fat nutri- 

(pounds) ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1 ,0 jo lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,167.6 lbs. milk, 3.35 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,085.25 



Chi, Period 2 
91. S3 I 585.47 I 33-30 I 751.93 
by Haecker 



25.24 
SI. 49 



252.3s 
238.19 



3.61 
16.81 



285.71 



327.50 



76.73 490.54 20.42 613.21 75.88 560.28 



91 .53 I 632.10 
by Armsby 



17.50 
58.38 



350.28 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,050 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,089.8 lbs. milk, 3.54 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



Chi, Period 3 

93 73 I 594-45 1 34-41 I 76560 
by Haecker 



25 ■ 73 



257.25 



232.13 



489.38 



3.68 
16.46 



20. 14 



29 I . 26 

318.54 



609.80 



93-73 I 649.60 
by Armsby 



54 49 



326.94 



71.99 I 536-94 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,050 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,141.5 lbs. milk. 3.63 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,021 .16 



Omega, Period i 

85.68 I 552.44 1 30.76 I 707.33 

by Haecker 
25. 73 



52.39 



78.12 



257.25 
248.8s 



506. 10 



3.68 
17.58 



21.26 



291 . 26 
340.79 



632.05 



85-68 1 592.79 

by Armsby 
17.50 I 210.00 

57.08 342.4s 



74 58 552.45 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,050 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,097.1 lbs. milk, 3.75 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1.043.63 



Omega, Period 2 

86.02 I 563.01 I 30.52 I 717.70 
by Haecker 



25. 73 
51.02 



257.25 
243.56 



3.68 



17.22 



76.75 500. 81 20.90 624.59 



291 .26 



333.33 



86.02 I 596.64 

by Armsby 
17.50 

54.86 



72.36 



Amount fed 

Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,061 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,026.6 lbs. milk. 3.87 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Omega, Period 3 

84.21 I 536.37 I 31. II I 690.58 
by Haecker 



25. 99 

48.35 
74-34 



259.95 

232.01 
491.96 



3.71 

16.43 
20.14 



294.29 

317.33 
611.62 



84.21 1 583 63 
by Armsby 



51.33 



68.83 



307 98 
S17.98 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 93 

TABLE 29 (continued) 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Pat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- I Protein 
ment | (pounds) 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

900 lbs. weight. . 
For product : 

785.8 lbs. milk, 
cent fat 



Total . 



Susanna. Period i 

83.38 I 496.96 I 31.86 I 652.02 
by Haecker 



22.05 
42.90 



220.50 

216.09 



3 IS 

15.25 



249 • 64 
293 • 30 



64-95 436.59 18.40 542.94 55.04 431-74 



83.38 1 538.1 

by Armsby 
IS. 75 



39.29 



196.00 
235-74 



Amount fed. 



Required — ■ 
For maintenance: 

909 lbs. weight 

For product: 

649.9 lbs. milk, 5.41 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



808.55 



Susanna. Period 2 

69.94 I 437.48 I 25.63 I 565.09 
by Haecker 

3. If 



22.27 
36.65 



222.71 
185.22 



58.92 407.93 



13.06 



16. 24 



252.13 
251.26 



503.39 



69-94 1 466-27 
by Armsby 



15-75 
32.50 



196.00 
194-97 



48-25 



390.97 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

919 lbs. weight 

For product: 

627.3 lbs. milk, 5.3s per 
cent fat 



Total . 



896 . 6s 



Susanna. Period 3 
77.37 I 486.54 I 28.19 
by Haecker 

3 22 



22.52 
35.19 



S7.7I 



225. 16 
178.15 



12.55 



403.31 



627.34 

25492 
241.58 



496 . 50 



77.37 I 522.27 

by Armsby 
IS 75 196.00 



31.37 



47.12 



188.19 



384.19 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

898 lbs. weight 

For product: 

878.6 lbs. milk, 6.07 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



946 . 20 



Taffy's Anna, Period i 

87.86 I 515.84 I 34.09 I 680.40 
by Haecker 



22.00 
52.98 



271.49 



74.98 491.50 



3.14 
19.15 



249.08 
367 . S6 



22.29 616.64 



87.86 I 587.42 

by Armsby 
15. 75 196.00 



43.93 



59.68 



263.58 



459.58 



Taffy's Anna, Period 2 



Amount fed 

Required — 
For maintenance: 

927 lbs. weight 

For product: 

828.2 lbs. milk, 6.37 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



961 .40 



8593 



74.14 



521.57 I 32.50 I 680.63 
by Haecker 



227. 12 

265.02 
492 . 14 



3 24 

18.72 
21.96 



257.12 

358.57 
61S.69 



85-93 I 577-43 

by Armsby 
15.75 196.00 



41.41 
57-16 



248 . 46 
444.46 



94 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 29 (concluded) 



Dry 

matter 

(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

960 lbs. weight 

For product: 

804.2 lbs. milk, 6.61 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



Taffy's Anna, Period 3 

89-13 I 545-85 I 33. 52 i 710.40 
by Haecker 



23.74 
51.15 



237.41 
263.78 



74.89 SOI. 19 



3 39 
18.66 



268 . 78 
356.91 



22.0s 623.69 



89. 13 1 605.69 
by Armsby 



241 .26 



4SI-26 



TABLE 29a. Average Constituents Fed Group C, 1909-1910, and Require- 
ments According to Standards 



Period i 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 2 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 3 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 



Protein 
(pounds) 



84.56 
73-59 



83-35 
71.63 



86.11 
70.51 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



680.14 
600.37 



678.84 
589.22 



698.48 
585.90 



Nutritive 
ratio 



7.0 
7.2 



7.1 
7-2 



7.1 
7-3 



Percent- 
age of 
total nu- 
triment 
above 
standard 



by Armsby 
by Armsby 
by Armsby, 



Protein 
(pounds) 



84.56 
66.21 



83.35 
63.41 



86.11 
61.41 



Therms 



575.15 
500.49 



568 . 1 1 
483.71 



590.30 
472.59 



Percent- 
age of 
therms 
above 

standard 



The records of production in 1909-1910 used in the study of the appH- 
cation of Haccker's standard are ^iven in tables 30, 31, and 32. For the 
study of the ai)pHcation of Armsby's standard, tables 33, 34, and 35 are 
drawn from tables 30, 31, and 32. In tables 30, 31, and 32, the data in 
the column headed " Pounds total product " are derived by multiplying 
the butter- fat by 2^ and addin<; the solids-not-fat. 

TABI>E T,<). Record of Production. Group A, 1909-1910 



Cow 1 Period 


Pounds 
milk 


Percent- 
age fat 


Pounds 
fat 


Percent- 
age solids- 
not-fat 


Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 


Pounds 

total 
product 




I 
2 
3 

I 
2 
3 


849.3 
756.9 
724.1 

630.6 
628.8 
647.8 


5.37 
S.24 
5.31 

6.19 
6.48 
6.54 


45-647 
39-692 
38-456 

39028 
40 - 769 
42-353 


9-37 

9-21 

9-31 

9-93 
9-87 
9.82 


79.625 
69.741 
67.408 

62.611 
62.082 
63.601 


182.331 
159.048 
I S3. 934 

150.424 
153.812 
158.89s 


Garnet Delta 





Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 30 {concluded) 



95 



Cow 


Period 


Pounds 

milk 


Percent- 
age fat 


Pounds 

fat 


Percent- 
age solids- 
not^fat 


Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 


Pounds 

total 
product 




I 
2 
3 

I 
2 

3 

I 
2 
3 


1.235-3 
1,289.2 
1,252.9 

1,320.1 
I , 264 . 8 
1,210.2 

1,008.8 
984-9 
958.7 


3.80 
3-98 
4.12 

3-20 
3-32 
3-40 

4-31 
4.41 
4-53 


46.918 
51-351 
51.653 

42 . 203 
42.014 
41.128 

43 - 449 
43-436 
43-397 


8.93 
8.92 
903 

8.77 
8.91 
8.91 


110.331 
114-971 
113.115 

115-770 
112.746 
107.783 


215.897 


Eta 


230.511 
229.334 

210.727 


Average, group A . . . 


207.278 
200.321 

189-845 
187-662 
185.621 



TABLE 31. Record of Production. Group B, 1909-1910 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds i Percent- 
milk age fat 



Pounds 
fat 



Percent- 
age solids- 
not-fat 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 



Pounds 

total 
product 



Omicron 

Sigma 

Hector's Berta 

Lady Clay 

Average, group B 



1,593.4 
1,497-7 
1,215.1 

1,393.7 

1,344-5 
1,270.5 

1,058.3 
965.2 
936.9 

965.9 
899-5 
852.1 

1,252.8 
1,176.7 
1 , 068 . 7 



3-35 
3-65 

3-84 

3-74 
3-93 
4-09 

S.46 
5.71 
5. 43 

3.81 
4.01 
4.13 

3-99 

4.22 
4-32 



53-403 
54-645 
46 . 669 

52.127 
52.822 
51-969 

57.791 
55-126 
50.849 

36.840 
36.054 
35.172 

50 . 040 
49 . 662 
46.165 



8.72 
8.71 
8.70 

8.95 
8.99 
9.01 

9-34 
9-27 
9-41 

9.01 
9.06 
9.10 



138.910 
130.382 
105.746 

124.677 
120.874 
II4.4S6 

98.888 
89.518 
88.174 

87-032 
81.512 
77.571 



259.067 
253-333 
210.751 

241.963 
239.724 
231.416 

228.918 
213.552 
202.584 

169.922 
162.634 
156.708 

224.967 
217.311 
200.36s 



TABLE 32. Record of Production. Group C, 1909-1910 



Cow 


Period 


Pounds 
milk 


Percent- 
age fat 


Pounds 
fat 


Percent- 
age solids- 
not-fat 


Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 


Pounds 

total 
product 


Chi 


I 
2 
3 

I 
2 
3 

I 
2 
3 

I 
2 
3 

I 
2 
3 


1,160.7 
1,167.6 
1,089.8 

1,141-5 
1,097-1 
1,026.6 

785.8 
649-9 
627.3 

878.6 
828.2 
804.2 

991-7 
935-7 
887.0 


3-37 
3-35 
3-54 

3-63 
3-75 
3-87 

5-11 
5-41 
5-35 

6.07 
6.37 
6.61 

4-39 
4-49 
4-65 


39-117 
39 - 093 
38-590 

41.401 
41.130 
39-742 

40. 191 
35.168 
33-576 

53.330 
52.749 
53-133 

43-510 
42-035 
41.260 


8.95 
8.90 
8.82 

9.12 
8.95 
8.99 

9-50 
9.00 
9.09 

9.83 
9-77 
9.81 


103.845 
103-930 
96.168 

104.093 
98.229 
92.276 

74-684 
58. 46 I 
57-017 

86.362 
80.955 
78.931 


191 .858 




191.889 
182.996 

197 .24s 




190.772 
181.696 

165. 114 




137.589 
133-563 

206.355 


Average, group C . . . 


199 ■ 640 
198.480 

190.138 
179-972 
173-934 



96 



Bulletin. 323 



The factors 4.218 therms per pound of butter-fat and i.86o therm per 
pound of ash-free soHds-not-fat are used in computing the energy value 
of the product in tables 33, 34, and 35.^ In determining the ash, .7 per 
cent was used as the average percentage of ash in milk. 

TABLE 33. Energy Value of Product. Group A, 1909-19 10 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
—.7 per 
cent ash 



Therms 
in 
fat 



Therms 

in 
ash-free 
solids-not- 
fat 



Total 
therms 



Cornelia . 



Garnet Delta. 



Gipsy . 



Eta. 



Average, group A. 



73 • 680 
64.443 
62.339 

58.197 
57.680 
59.066 

loi .684 
105.947 
104-345 

106.529 

103 . 892 

99.312 



192.539 
167.421 
162.207 

164.620 
171.964 
178.645 

197.900 
216.599 
217.872 

178.012 
177.215 
173.478 



137 
119 
115 

108 
107 
109 

189 

197 
194 

198 

193 
184 



045 
864 

951 

246 

285 
863 

132 
061 
082 

144 
239 
720 



329.584 
287.285 
278.158 

272.866 
279.249 
288 . 508 

387.032 
413.660 
411-954 

376.156 
370.454 
358.198 

341.409 
337.662 
334 204 



TABLE 34. Energy Value of Product. Group B. 1909-1910 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
—.7 per 
cent ash 



Therms 
in 
fat 



Therms 

in 
ash-free 
solids-not- 
fat 



Total 
therms 



Omicron . 



Sigma. 



Hector's Berta . 



Lady Clay. 



Average, group B . 



127.756 

119.898 

97.240 

114. 921 
III. 462 
105 592 

91 .480 
82.762 
81.616 

80.271 

75.215 
7 1 . 606 



225.254 

230.493 
196.850 

219.872 
222 . 803 
219.205 

243 . 762 
232.521 
214.481 

155 391 
152.076 

148 -355 



237.626 
223.010 
180.866 

213 -753 
207.319 
196.401 

170.153 
155.937 
151 .806 

149.304 
139.900 
133 187 



462 
453 
377 

433 
430 
415 

413 

386 
366 

304 
291 

281 

403 
390 



880 

503 
716 

625 
122 
606 

915 

458 
287 

695 
976 

542 

779 
515 



360.288 



' H. P. Armsby. " Principles of Animal Nutrition," p.iRC 279. 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



97 



TABLE 35. Energy Value of Product. Group C, 1909-1910 



Cow 



Chi 

Omega 

Susanna 

Taffy's Anna 

Average, group C 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
—.7 per 
cent ash 



95 


720 


95 


757 


88 


539 


96 


102 


90 


549 


«5 


090 


69 


183 


53 


912 


52 


626 


80 


212 


75 


158 


73 


302 











Therms 
in 
fat 



164 
164 
162 



174 
173 
167 

169 
148 
141 

224 
222 
224 



996 
894 

773 

629 

486 
632 

526 

339 
624 

946 
495 
115 



Therms 

in 

ash-free 

soHds-not- 

fat 



178 
178 
164 

178 
168 
158 

128 

100 

97 

149 

139 
136 



039 
108 
683 

750 
421 
267 

680 
276 
884 

194 
794 
342 



Total 
therms 



343 035 
343.002 
327 456 

353.379 
341-907 
325-899 

298.206 

248.615 
239 . 508 

374-140 
362.289 
360.457 

342.190 
323 -953 
313330 



TABLE 36. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group A, 1909-1910' 





Average 

at _ 
beginning 


Average 
at 
end 


Gain -f 
Loss — 


Average 

for 
period 




Period i 


858 

887 

934 

1,138 

861 

925 

974 

1,199 

891 

962 

995 

1,205 


840 

940 

994 

1,187 

876 

953 

980 

1,188 

868 

947 
1 ,007 

1,199 


—18 

+ 53 
+60 

+49 

+ 15 
+28 
+ 6 
— II 

—23 
—15 
+ 12 
— 6 


849 


Garnet Delta 


913 




964 


Eta 


1,163 




Period 2 


868 


riqrnpt Dolta 


939 




977 


Eta 


1. 193 




Period 3 ' 


879 


Gnrnpt Delta 


954 




1 ,001 


Eta 


1 ,202 


Average for 


group A, period i 

2 

3 


972 

994 

1 ,009 



* The method of computing tables 36, 37, and 38 is given on paga 98. 



gS BrLLETIM 323 

TABLE 37. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group B, 1909-1910 



Average 

at _ 
beginning 



Average 
at 
end 



Gain + 
Loss — 



Average 

for 
period 



Period I 



Omicron 

Sigma 

Hector's Berta. 
Lady Clay . . . . 



Period 2 



Omicron 

Sigma 

Hector's Berta. 
Lady Clay. . . . 



Omicron 

Sigma 

Hector's Berta. 
Lady Clay . . . . 



Period 3 



Average for group B, period i 
2 . 
3 



1-093 
1 ,029 

793 
987 



1,152 

1.077 

816 

1 ,016 



1,184 

1 , 109 

828 

1 ,067 



1 ,142 

1 ,067 

821 

1,021 



1,183 

1 ,106 

821 

1,053 



1,171 

1 ,111 

796 

1.093 



+49 

+3« 
+28 

+34 



+31 
+29 

+ 5 
+37 



—13 
+ 2 
—32 
+26 



1,117 

X ,048 

807 

1 ,004 



1 ,167 

1 ,091 

818 

1 .035 



1,178 

1 ,110 

812 

1 ,080 

994 
1,028 

1,045 



TABLE 38. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group C, 1909-1910 



Average 

at 
beginning 



Average 

at 

end 



Gain + 
Loss — 



Average 

for 
period 



Period i 



Chi 

Omega 

Susanna 

Taffy's Anna . 



Period 2 



Chi 

Omega 

Susanna 

Taffy's Anna . 



Chi. 



Period 3 



Omega 

Susanna 

Taffy's Anna . 



Average for group C, period i . 
2. 
3- 



1,003 
1,049 

881 
881 



1,018 

1,050 

908 

912 



1 ,040 
1 ,061 

913 
960 



1 ,046 

1,051 

919 

914 



1 ,042 

1 , 050 

910 

941 



1 .061 

1 .062 
926 
977 



+43 
+ 2 
+38 
+33 



+24 



+ 2 
+29 



+21 
+ I 
+ 13 
+ 17 



1,025 

1 , 050 

900 

898 



1 , 030 

1 , 050 

909 

927 



1 , 050 

1 ,061 

919 

969 

968 

979 
1 ,000 



The record of the live weight of the cows in 1909-1910 is given in tables 
36, 37, and 38. The cows were weighed for three successive mornings at 



Feeding vStandards for Milk Production 



99 



the beginning and the end of each period. The average of these three 
weights is taken as the weight at the beginning and at the end of each 
period, in determining the loss or gain during the period. The average 
of all six weights is given in the fifth column of these tables. This 
average weight is the weight used to determine the requirement for main- 
tenance for each period. 

Data of the winter of igio-igii 

It was considered best to give the detailed records for igio-igii in the 
same way and to draw conclusions from the data of both years considered 
together. 

In igio-igii the experiment was started with twelve cows. They 
were divided into groups A, B, and C, four cows to a group. At about the 
middle of the experiment, a cow in group B died from a cause that could 
not be determined by a thorough post-mortem examination. Therefore 
group B is shown to be made up of three cows. The data regarding the 
cows are given in Table 3g: 

TABLE 39. Cows in Experiment of 1910-1911 



Breed 


Age 
(years) 


G 


4 


J 


7 


H 


10 


H 


6 


H 


7 


H 


7 


Gr.H 


4 


H 


6 


H 


5 


Gr.G 


4 


H 


4 



Last 

calf 

(1910) 



Average 

live weight 

(pounds) 



Group A 

Glenwood Queen 

Cornelia Marvella 

Glista Eta 

Glista Tau 

Group B 

Glista Omicron 

Glista Sigma 

Charity 

Group C 

Glista Chi 

Glista Psi 

Effie 

Glista Cailotta 



Nov. 16 
Sept. 16 
Oct. 2 
Sept. 12 



Oct. 5 
Oct. 3 
Oct. 9 



Sept. 13 
July 21 
Sept. 29 
Oct. 17 



1 ,072 

865 
1,184 
1. 341 



1.239 

1.053 

990 



1.073 

1. 179 

846 

1.253 



In igio-igii the cows were fed a ration of clover hay, corn silage, 
mangels, and grain mixtures composed of hominy chop, wheat bran, 
gluten feed, and distillers' dried grains (Ajax flakes). The composition 
of the fodders, as given in Table 40, was determined from actual chemi- 
cal analysis by the use of the digestible coefficients given in the tenth 
edition of " Feeds and Feeding " by W. A. Henry: 



lOO 



Bulletin 323 



T AI'I.i: 40, Composition of Fodders per 100 Pounds. 1910-1911 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Fiber 
(pounds) 



Nitro- 
gen- 
free 
extract 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Value 
per 100 
pounds 



Clover hay 

Corn silage 

Mangels 

Distillers' dried 

grains 

Hominy 

Gluten feed 

Wheat bran 



86.85 
31.09 
12.26 

95.08 
90.68 
90.78 
92.68 



5-35 
1.42 
1 .09 

23 -54 

6.74 

21 .46 

11.97 



16.31 

415 
.29 

9.08 
2-35 
4-94 
3-79 



24.44 

13 38 

8.41 

30.94 
57 90 
46.87 
40-45 



II .09 
.84 
.06 

12. II 

8.23 

I 93 
2.84 



34-74 

16.56 

4.62 

79-23 
*88 . 84 

79 32 
48.23 



$0.60 
O.I125 
0.20 

1.50 
1. 125 
125 
1-25 



*The therms energy in hominy is not given by Armsby in Farmers' Bulletin 346. 
in corn is used instead. 

The grain mixtures used in igio-igii were as follows: 



The therms energy 



Mixture 



Feeds 


Constituents in mixture i 


200 lbs. 


hominy chop 


92 . 02 per cent dry matter 


200 lbs. 


wheat bran 


12.94 per cent digestible protein 


75 lbs. 


gluten feed 


4.15 per cent digestible fiber 


75 lbs. 


distillers' dried grains 


46.37 per cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 

5 . 94 per cent digestible fat 
71 .46 therms energy 



The cost of 100 pounds of mixture i was $1,239, 



Mixture 2 



Feeds 


Constituents in mixture 2 


50 lbs. 


hominy chop 


92 . 53 per cent dry matter 


75 lbs. 


wheat bran 


17.65 per cent digestible protein 


100 lbs. 


gluten feed 


5 . 55 per cent digestible fiber 


100 lbs. 


distillers' dried grains 


42 . 18 i^er cent digestible nitrogen-free extract 

6 . 24 per cent digestible fat 
73 . 58 therms energy 



The cost of 100 pounds of mixture 2 was $1,308. 

The rations were so constructed that the nutritive ratio would be about 
1 : 7 except when groups B and C were fed mixture 2 . 

The grou])s were fed practically the same as in 1909-19 10. Group A 
received mixture i all through the experiment, getting about all the 
roughage and grain that the cows would eat up clean each day. Group B 
was fed mixture i during the first and second periods, and mixture 2 
during the third period. During the second period, however, it was 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production ioi 

intended that group B be fed the exact amounts of nutriment called for by 
Haecker's standard according to its production. During the third period, 
group B was fed the same amount of total nutriment as in the second 
period, but the relative amount of protein was increased so that the nutri- 
tive ratio was 1:6.3. Group C was fed mixture i during the first and 
second periods. It was intended that this group be fed according to 
Haecker's standard in the first period, all that they would eat up clean 
during the second period, and in the third period all that they would eat of 
mixture 2, so that the nutritive ratio of their ration in period 3 was i :6.2. 
As in 1 909-1 9 10, each period was six weeks in length, the data from only 
the last five weeks of each period being considered. The detailed records 
of quantity of food consumed are given in tables 41, 42, and 43 : 



TABLE 41. Feed Record of Group A. 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 


Hay 
(pounds) 


Silage 
(pounds) 


Mangels 
(pounds) 


Grain 
(pounds) 


I 
2 
3 


280 
224 

272 


1,050 
1,050 
1,050 


700 
700 
700 


318 
350 
350 


I 
2 
3 


280 
224 
268 


970 

875 
970 


650 
700 

535 


318 
316 
312 


I 

2 
3 


350 
350 
350 


1,400 
1 ,400 
1,380 


700 
700 
700 


420 
420 
420 


I 
2 
3 


350 
350 
350 


1,225 
1. 195 
1,165 


700 
690 

685 


420 
361 
338 



Glenwood . 



Cornelia . 



Eta. 



Tau. 



Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture i 

Mixture I 



TABLE 42. Feed Record of Group B. 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 


Hay 


Silage 


Mangels 


Grain 


(pounds) 


(pounds) 


(pounds) 


(pounds) 


I 


350 


1 ,400 


700 


420 


2 


350 


1 ,400 


700 


385 


3 


350 


1,375 


700 


372 


I 


350 


1,225 


700 


420 


2 


350 


1,225 


700 


385 


3 


350 


1,225 


700 


375 


I 


350 


1,150 


700 


385 


2 


342 


1 , 050 


700 


350 


3 


350 


1,050 


700 


340.5 



Omicron . 



Sigma. 



Charity . 



Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture 2 

Mixture I 
Mixture I 
Mixture 2 

Mixture i 
Mixture i 
Mixture 2 



Bulletin 323 
TABLE 43. Feed Record of Group C. ^ 1910-1911 



Cow 


Period 


Hay 
(pounds) 


Silage 
(pounds) 


Mangels 
(pounds) 


Grain 
(pounds) 




Chi 


I 
2 
3 

I 

2 
3 

I 
2 
3 

I 

2 
3 


350 
350 
350 

350 
350 
350 

280 
224 
268 

350 
350 
350 


1-225 
1.225 
1.225 

1.225 
1 ,400 
1 ,400 

875 
930 
875 

1.225 
1 ,400 
1 ,400 


700 
700 
700 

700 
700 
700 

700 
560 
210 

700 
700 
700 


245 
309 
350 

298 
365 
399 

228 

273 
280 

400 
420 




Psi 


Mixture i 
Mixture 2 


Effie 


Mixture i 
Mixture 2 

Mixture I 


Carlotta 


Mixture i 
Mixture 2 




Mixture i 
Mixture 2 



The constituents in the food arc tabulated as in the records for 1909- 
1910, as described on pa<j;e 85. This tabulation makes ujj tables 44, 44a, 
45, 45a, 46, and 46a. These are followed by tables 47, 48, and 49, giving 
the record of production of each group in 19 10- 191 1. The energy value of 
the product is given in tables 50, 51, and 52. The record of live weight 
in 1910-1911 is given in tables 53, 54, and 55. 

TABLE 44. Constituents Fed Group A, 1910-1911, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1.05s lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,118 lbs. milk, S.33 per 
cent fat 



948.07 



Glen wood. Period i 
78.67 I 519-3 1 31.18 I 668.55 
by Haccker 

292.63 



25.85 
62.73 



S.58 



258.48 
317.51 



57S.99 



3.69 
22.36 



26.0s 



78.67 I 530.73 
by Armsby 



430.55 



723.18 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1.068 lbs. weight 

For product: 

886.7 lbs. milk, 5-66 per 
cent fat 



928 . 88 



Total . 



Glen wood, Period 2 
79.81 1 513.08 I '32.47 I 66s. 95 



26. 17 

51.34 
77.51 



by Haecker 

3.74 



261 .66 

260 . 69 
S22.35 



18.44 



296.25 
353.52 



22.18 649.77 



79.81 I 534 IS 

by Armsby 
18.20 



4 1.34 
62.54 



2 1 7 . 00 

266.01 
483.01 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 44 (continued) 



103 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



o „*„;„ Carbo- 
(P°-d^) Sounds 



Fat 

(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1.093 lbs. weight 

For product: 

777 lbs. milk, S-82 per cent 
fat 



Total . 



Glen wood, Period 3 
82.38 I 532.64 I 32.99 I 689.25 
by Haecker 



26.78 
45.69 



72.47 



267.79 



233.10 



500 . 89 



3.83 
16.39 



303 19 
315.67 



618.86 



82.38 I 550.82 
by Armsby 



18.90 
38.85 



57.75 



224.00 
233.10 



457.10 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

874 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,074.9 lbs. milk, 5. 15 per 
cent fat 



917.06 



Total . 



Cornelia, Period I 

76.99 1 501.37 1 30.48 I 646.94 
by Haecker 

242.42 



21 .41 
59.01 



80.42 511 



214.13 
297 . 75 



3 06 
20.96 



403.92 



24.02 646.34 



76.99 1 5IS.17 

by Armsby 
15.75 192.50 



53.75 



69.50 



322.47 



SI4-97 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

857 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,011.8 lbs. milk, 5.22 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



843.18 



Cornelia, Period 2 

72.93 I 465.21 I 28.98 I 603.35 
by Haecker 



21 .00 



55.85 



76.8s 



209.97 
281.28 



3.00 
19.83 



237.72 
381.75 



491.25 



22.83 619.47 



72.93 ! 480.87 

by Armsby 
15.40 I 189.00 



50.59 



65.99 



303.54 



492. S4 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

864 lbs. weight 

For product : 

952.1 lbs. milk, 5.46 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Cornelia, Period 3 
887.02 I 74.31 I 48342 I 29.92 I 625.05 I 74-31 I 501.41 
by Haecker bj- Armsby 

3 02 



21 . 17 
53 98 



75. IS 



211.68 
27325 



484 -93 



19.23 



239.64 15.40 

370.50 47.61 



610.14 63.01 



189.00 
285.63 



474.63 



Amount fed. 



1,211.54 



Required — 
F"or maintenance: 

1,176 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,584.6 lbs. milk, 3.46 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



Eta, Period i 
100.59 I 661.13 I 40.95 I 853.86 I 100.59 1 685,90 



28.81 

70.83 
99 64 



by Haecker 
288. 12 I 4.1: 



by Armsby 



331. It 



23-45 



619.30 27.57 



326.20 



454-77 
780.97 



19-95 



79.23 
99.18 



475.38 
709.88 



104 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 44 {concluded) 



Dry 
matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Amount fed 

Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,185 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,559.8 lbs. milk, 3-42 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



1,211.54 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Eta, Period 2 
100,59 I 66l. 13 1 4" 95 
by Haecker 



29 • 03 
69.26 



S.29 



290 . a 



321.32 



611.6s 



4. 15 



22.77 



26.92 



853.86 


100.59 


68s . 90 




by Armsby 


328.70 


19-95 


234 . SO 


441 -81 


77.99 


467 . 94 



770.51 I 97.94 I 702.44 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,192 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,423.8 lbs. milk, 3.79 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Eta, Period 3 
100.31 I 657.62 I 40.78 I 849.68 
by Haecker 
29.20 I 292.04 4.17 



66.63 



95.83 



318.93 



610.97 



22.50 



26.67 



330 62 
436.19 



766.81 



100.31 I 682.59 

by Armsby 
20.30 



71.19 



238.00 

427.14 



665.14 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,327 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1.097-5 lbs. milk, 3.93 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Tau, Period i 
)8.ii I 630.46 



52.3s 



84.86 



39.48 I 817.40 
by Haecker 
325.12 



253. 52 



578.64 



4.64 I 368.07 
17.89 I 346.12 



22.53 I 714.19 



98.11 I 656.92 

by Armsby 
22.05 



tA.i 



76.93 



255.50 
329.25 



584.7s 



Amount fed ( 1 , 092 . 29 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,336 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,040.2 lbs. milk, 4.17 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



Tau, Period 2 
89.93 I 594.9 



35.71 I 765.20 
by Haecker 



32.73 327.32 



50.87 



83.60 



248.61 



4.68 
17. 58 



575.93 



22.26 



370.58 



89.93 I 609.33 

by Armsby 
22.05 



52.01 



74.06 



255.50 
312 .06 



567.56 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1. 359 lbs. weight 

For product: 

967.6 lbs. milk, 4.29 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



I ,061 .09 



Tau, Period 3 
86.48 I 577.22 I 34-10 I 740.43 
by Haecker 



33-30 

48.19 

K1.49 



332.96 

237.06 
570.02 



4.76 

16.74 
2 1, so 



376.97 

322.92 
699.89 



86.48 I 587.69 
by Armsby 
22.40 



48.38 
70.78 



259.00 

290.28 
549.28 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 



los 



TABLE 44a. Average Constituents Fed Group A, 1910-191 1 , and Requirements 

According to Standards 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Total 

nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Nutri- 
tive ■ 
ratio 



Percent- 
age of 
total nu- 
triment 
above 
standard 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Percent- 
a:je of 
therms 
above 
standard 



Period I 

Amount fed 

Required by Haccker 

Period 2 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 

Period 3 

Amount fed 

Required by Haecker 



88.59 
88.38 



85.82 
84.06 



85. 87 
81.24 



746 . 69 
716. 17 



721.99 
687.34 



726. 10 
673 -92 



1:7-4 
i: 7.1 



1:7.4 
i: 7.2 



1:7.5 
1:7.3 



by Armsby 
by Armsby 
by Armsby 



88.59 
79.93 



85.82 
75.13 



85.87 
70.76 



597.18 
590.50 



577.56 
561.39 



580.63 
536.54 



TABLE 45. Constituents Fed Group B, 1910-1911, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,224 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,500 lbs. milk, 3.79 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



r, 211. 54 



Omicron, Period i 

100.59 I 661.13 I 40.9s I 853.86 

by Haecker 
29.99 



299 . 88 
336 . 00 



100.19 635.88 



4.28 
23.70 



27.98 



339. SO 
459.53 



799.03 



100.59 1 685.90 
by Armsby 

241.50 



20.65 
75.00 



95.6s 



450.00 



691.50 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,236 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,405.4 lbs. milk, 3.91 pe; 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,179. 34 



Omicron, Period 2 
96.06 I 643.45 I 38.87 I 826.97 
by Haecker 



30.28 
66,62 



302.82 



320.43 



96.90 623.25 



4.33 



22.63 



26.96 



342.84 



437.97 



780.81 



96.06 I 660.89 

by Armsby 



20.65 



241.50 
421.62 



663.13 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,258 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,377.5 lbs. milk, 4 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,161.50 



Omicron, Period 3 

III. 55 i 622.13 I 39.00 I 821.43 I III. 55 1 655.35 
by Haecker 1 by Armsby 



30.82 



96.94 



308.21 



320.96 
629.17 



22.59 



26.99 



348.93 

437.91 
786.84 



89.88 



24s . 00 

413.2s 
6s8.2S 



io6 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 45 {continued) 



Dry 
matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total 
nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1 ,043 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,518.9 lbs. milk, 3.83 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,053 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,500.6 lbs. milk, 3.87 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1 ,064 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1.492.6 lbs. milk, 4.1 per 
cent fat 



Total. 



1 , 1 1 7 . 64 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

987 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,451.9 lbs. milk, 3.8 per 
cent fat 



1,001.62 



Total . 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

987 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1.310.3 lbs. milk, 3.72 per 
cent fat 



Total 



Sigma, Period i 
98 . 1 1 I 630 . 46 



71.54 



39.48 I 817.40 
by Haecker 

3.6s 



255.54 
343.27 



598.81 



24.30 



289.30 
469.49 



98. II I 656.92 

by Armsby 
18.20 



75-95 



758.79 



94- 15 



2 1 7 . 00 
455.67 



672.67 



Sigma, Period 2 

93.58 I 612.78 I 37.40 I 790.51 
by Haecker 



25.80 
70.68 



96.48 



257 99 
339 14 



597.13 



3 69 
24.01 



27.70 



292.09 
463 . 84 



755.93 



93.58 I 631.91 
by Armsby 
18.20 ' 217.00 

75.03 450.18 



667.18 



Sigma, Period 3 
109 95 1 . 597.27 I 37.93 i 792.56 
by Haecker 



26.07 



98.61 



260 . 68 



3.72 



353.75 24.93 



295. 12 



482.38 



614.43 28.6s 777-50 



109 95 I 632.72 
by Armsby 



74.63 



92.83 



447 ■ 78 



664.78 



Charity, Period i 

92. SI I 599.63 I 36.77 I 774.87 ' 92.51 I 619.49 
by Haecker by Armsby 



24.18 
67.95 



92.13 



241 .82 



325.23 



567 . OS 



3.45 
22.94 



26.39 



273 76 



17.50 



444.79 72.60 



718.55 



90. 10 



435. 57 



645.57 



Charity, Period 2 

86.13 I 561.16 I 33.76 I 723.25 I 86.13 1 57514 
by Haecker by Armsby 



24.18 

60. S4 
- 84.72 



241.82 

288.27 
530 . 09 



3 45 

20.31 
23.76 



273.76 I 17.50 



394-51 
668.27 



65.52 

8^ 02 



393-09 
603 . 09 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 45 (concluded) 



107 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

995 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,247.2 lbs. milk, 3.78 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Protein 



Dry 

matter 1 /„„„„j,n 
(pounds) (P°"nds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Total 
Fat [ nutri- Protein 
(pounds) ment (pounds) 
(pounds) 



Charity, Period 3 
101.37 I 550. 12 



24 38 
58.37 



82.75 



34-31 

by Haecker 
243.78 I 3.48 



279.37 



19.71 



728.69 

275-99 
382.09 



Therms 



101.37 I 578.35 
by Armsby 

210.00 



658.08 



17.50 
62.36 



79.86 



374.16 



584.16 



TABLE 45a. Average Constituents Fed Group B, 1910-191 1 , .a.nd Requirements 

According to Standards 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Total 

nutri- 
ment 
(pounds) 



Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 



Percent- 
age of 
total nu- 
triment 
above 
standard 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Percent- 
age of 
therms 
above 
standard 



Period i 1 

Amount fed ' 97 . 07 

Required by Haecker 96.47 

Period 2 

Amount fed 91-92 

Required by Haecke. 92.70 

Period 3 

Amount fed 107.62 

Required by Haeckei 92 . 77 



815.38 
758.79 



780.24 
735.00 



780.89 
740.81 



1:7.4 
1:6.9 



1:7.5 
1:6.9 



1:6.3 
1:7.0 



by Armsby 



by Armsby 



by Armsby 



97.07 
93.30 



91.92 
89.06 



107.62 
87.52 



654.10 
669.91 



622.65 

644 . 46 



622.14 — 2.1 

635 ■ 73 



TABLE 46. Constituents Fed Group C, 1910-1911, and Requirements 
According to Standards 



D7 Protein 



Total I 
, J I Fat nutri- ' Protein 

JIL,"^" (pounds) I ment , (pounds) 
I (pounds) I 



Carbo- 



(pounds) 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,067 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,172.1 lbs. milk, 3.47 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



996. 10 



Chi, Period i 
75.46 I 542.06 I 29.08 I 682.95 

by Haecker 

261.42 j 3 73 



26.14 
52.39 



78.53 



244 • 97 



S06.39 



17.35 



21.08 



295.95 
336.40 



632.35 



Therms 



75-46 I 531.87 

by Armsby 
18.20 217.00 



58.61 



351 63 



76.81 



568.63 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,073 lbs. weight 

For product : 

1,177.6 lbs. milk, 3.38 per 
cent fat 



I ■ 054 99 



Chi, Period 2 
83-74 I 574-38 I 32.88 I 732.10 



by Haecker 



Total 



26. 29 

52.29 
78.58 



262. 



242.59 
SOS -48 



3-76 



297.64 

333 56 
631.20 



83-74 I 577-60 
by Armsby 



18.55 

58.88 
77.43 



220.50 

353-28 
573-78 



io8 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 46 (continued) 



Dry 

matter 

(pounds) 



Amount fed I 1,094.51 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,080 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,136.3 lbs. milk, 3.46 per 
cent fat 



TotaL 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 
hydrates 
(pounds) 



Fat 
(pounds) 



Total I 

nutri- I Protein 
ment 1 (pounds) 
(pounds) 



Therms 



Chi, Period 3 
105. 54 I 585-34 



36.37 
by Haecker 



26.46 ! 264.60 



3.78 
16.82 



20.60 



326. 12 



62s . 69 



105. 54 I 614,32 
by Armsby 



56.82 



340.89 



561.39 



Amount fed | i , 044 .87 

Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,181 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,404.8 lbs. milk, 3.37 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Psi, Period i 
82.32 I 568.83 I 32.23 
by Haecker 



28.93 I 289.3s 



61.95 



90. 88 



286.58 



723.67 



4-13 327.57 
20.23 I 394 05 



24.36 721.62 



82.32 I 56974 

by Armsby 
19-95 I 234.50 



70.24 



421.44 



655.94 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,175 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,458.2 lbs. milk, 3. 43 per 
cent fat 



1,160.93 



Tr.tal. 



Psi, Period 2 
93.47 I 633.3s 1 37.68 I 811.60 
by Haecker 



28.79 


287.88 


4-11 


325-92 


65.18 


304 76 


21.58 


418.49 


93.97 


592.64 


25-69 


744-41 



93.47 I 646.60 

by Armsby 
19.95 ( 234-50 



72.91 



92.86 



437.46 



671 .96 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,180 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,419.4 lbs. milk, 3.58 per 
cent fat 



Psi, Period 3 
1,194.25 116.66 I 639.39 I 40.90 I 848.08 I 116.66 I 679 35 
by Haecker ' by Armsby 

289.10 4.13 327.30 



Total . . 



28.91 
64.72 



93.63 



30s. 17 



594-27 



21.57 



418.42 



25.70 745-72 



19.95 
70.97 



90.92 



234 50 
425.82 



660.32 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

842 lbs. weight 

For product: 

840.3 lbs. milk, 4.24 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



810.85 



Effie, 


Period 1 








64-54 


443.57 


24 36 


562 


92 




by Haecker 






20.63 


206.29 


2.95 


233 


56 


41 59 


204.19 


14.4s 


278 


29 


62.22 


410.48 


17.40 


Sii 


85 



64 -54 I 437 44 

by Armsby 
15.40 ' 189,00 



42.02 
57.42 



252.09 
441.09 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 46 {concluded) 



109 



Amount fed. 



Dry 

matter 
(pounds) 



Protein 
(pounds) 



Carbo- 



Total I 
Fat , nutri- | Protein 



, J . I'at , nutri- JrTotem 1 'ru„_™,. 

^L^y^^t^ (pounds) I ment (pounds) i therms 



(pounds) 



(pounds) 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

844 lbs. weight 

For product: 

78 1. 1 lbs. milk, 4.71 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



803 55 



Effie, Period 2 
66.62 1 440.9s I 26.81 I 567.89 
by Haecker 



20.68 



40.77 



61.4s 



206.78 I 
203.09 



2.95 



409.87 



234.10 
276. 19 



S10.29 



66.62 I 452-79 
by Armsby 

189.00 



15.40 
39.06 



54-46 



234-33 



423.33 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

852 lbs. weight 

For product: 

719.5 lbs. milk, 5.02 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



789.63 



Effie, Period 3 
78,48 I 414-51 1 27. 
by Haecker 



20.87 
38. 85 



59.72 



208.74 



403 . 72 



13-74 



16.72 



555-70 


78.48 


453.72 




by Armsby 


236.32 


15.40 


189 00 


264 . 74 


35.98 


215-85 


501.06 


51.38 


404-85 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,225 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,368.1 lbs. milk, 3.37 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,076.16 



Carlotta, Period i 
86.72 1 586.01 I 34-25 
by Haecker 



30.01 
60.33 



90.34 



300.13 



4.29 



749.79 

339-79 
383-75 



723.54 



86.72 I 594 04 
by Armsby 

241.50 



20.65 
68.41 



89.06 



410.43 



651.93 



Amount fed . 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,256 lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,492.5 lbs. milk, 3.42 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



1,193.14 



Carlotta, Period 2 










98.00 


651.03 1 39-76 


838.49 


98.00 1 671.61 




by Haecker 




by Armsby 


30.77 


307-72 


4.40 


348.39 


21.00 


245.00 


66.27 


307.46 


21.79 


422.76 


74 63 


447.75 


97.04 


615.18 


26.19 


771.15 


95.63 692.75 



Amount fed. 



Required — 
For maintenance: 

1,27s lbs. weight 

For product: 

1,537.6 lbs. milk, 3.46 per 
cent fat 



Total . 



Carlotta, Period 3 
1,213.69 120.37 I 649.42 1 42.21 I 864.76 
by Haecker 



31-31 

08 . 73 
100.04 



3I3-II 

321.36 
634.47 



4.47 

22.76 
27.23 



354-48 

441.30 
795.78 



120.37 I 694-81 
by Armsby 
21.35 248.50 



76.88 
98.23 



461.28 
709.78 



no 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 40:1. 



Average Constituents Fed Group C, 1910-1911, and Requirements 
According to Standards 











Percent- 
age of 

total nu- 
triment 








Percent- 




Protein 
(pounds) 


nutri- 
ment 


Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 




Protein 
(pounds) 


Therms 


age of 

therms 

above 

standard 






(pounds) 


above 
standard 








Period i 


















Amount fed 


77.26 


679.83 


i: 7-7 


S.o 




77-26 


53J-27 


—8.0 


Required by Haecker 


80.49 


647.34 


i: 70 





by Armsby 


78.37 


579-40 




Period 2 


















Amount fed 


85.46 


737.52 


1:7.6 


II. 




85.46 


587-15 


—0.6 


Required by Haecker 


82.76 


664 . 26 


i: 7.0 




by Armsby 


80. 10 


590.46 




Period 3 


















Amount fed . '. 


105.26 


760.31 


1:6.2 


14.0 




105.26 


610. SS 


4-5 


Required by Haecker 


82.66 


667.06 


i: 7.1 




by Armsby 


78.98 


584.09 





TABLE 47. Record of Production. Group A, 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
milk 



Percent- 
age fat 



Pounds 
fat 



Percent- 
age solids- 
not-fat 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 



Pounds 

total 
product 



Glenwood . 



Cornelia . 



Eta. 



Tau. 



Average, group A. . , 



1. 118.0 
886.7 
777.0 

1.074-9 

1,011.8 

952.1 

1.584.6 
I. 559. 8 
1.423.8 I 

1,097-5 

1 , 040 . 2 

967.6 

1,218.8 
1,124.6 

1.030. 1 



S 33 

5.66 
5. 82 

5-15 

5-22 
S.46 

3.46 
3-42 

3-79 



59 - 606 
50.204 
45 • 203 

55-325 
52.780 
SI. 993 

54.776 
53.41s 
S3. 911 

43-186 
43.375 
41-473 

53 223 
49 944 

48-145 



9 


28 


9 


34 


9 


49 


9 


35 


9 


30 


9 


48 


8 


99 


9 


08 


9 


19 


9 


27 


9 


40 


9 


52 







103.767 
82.785 

73-734 

100.519 
94 134 
90.250 

142-397 
141 -573 
130.851 

101.789 
97.766 
92 .091 



237.881 
195.744 
175-441 

225 .000 
212.889 
207.234 

265.643 
261.757 
252.151 

198.958 
195.360 
185 405 

231.871 
216.438 
205.058 



TABLE 48. Record of Production. Group B, 1910-1911 



Cow 



Omicron 

Sigma 

Charity 

Average, group B 



Period 



Pounds 
milk 



I ,500.0 
1.405-4 
1.377.5 

1.518.9 
I , 500 . 6 
1,492.6 

1,451.9 
I.. 310. 3 
1.247.2 

1.490.3 
I. 40s. 4 
1.372.4 



Percent- 
age fat 



3-79 
3 91 
4.00 

3 83 
3.87 
4.10 

3.80 
3-72 
3.78 

3.81 
3-84 
3.97 



Pounds 
fat 



56.887 
54-948 
55025 

58.202 
58.072 
61.148 

55.158 
48.775 
47.202 

56.749 
53-932 
54 - 4S8 



Percent- 
age solids- 
not-fat 



9 


06 


9 


04 


9 


19 


8 


91 


8 


98 


9 


21 


9 


32 


9 


30 


9 


39 











Pounds 
solids- 
nct-fat 



135-880 
127.04s 
126.552 

135.378 
134.789 
137-539 

135 273 
121. 909 
117.087 



Pounds 

total 
product 



263 . 876 
250.678 
250.358 

266.333 
265.451 

275. 123 

259378 
231-653 
223.293 

263 . 196 
249. 261 
249.591 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 
TABLE 49. Record of Production. Group C, 1910-1911 



III 



Cow 



Chi. 



Psi. 



Effie. 



Carlotta. 



Period 



Average, group C . 



Pounds Percent- I Pounds 
milk I age fat I fat 







1. 172. 1 
1,177.6 
I. 136.3 


3. 
3. 
3. 


I , 404 . 8 
I.4S8.2 
1,419.4 


3. 
3. 
3. 


840.3 
781. 1 
719.5 


4. 
4. 
5. 


1,368.1 
1,492.5 
1,537.6 


3. 
3 
3 


1,196.3 

1,227.4 
I , 203 . 2 


3 
3 
3 



40 . 648 
39.817 
39.310 

47.342 

49. 959 
SO. 843 

35.618 
36.792 
36.123 

46. 114 
51.027 
53.276 

42.431 
44.399 
44.888 



Percent- | Pounds 
age solids- | solids- 
not-fat I not-fat 



8 


92 


8 


95 


9 


09 


8 


92 


9 


04 


9 


13 


9 


46 


9 


50 


9 


67 


8 


94 


9 


08 


9 


14 











104.540 
105.356 
103.254 

125.348 
131. 819 
129.526 

79. 521 
74.200 
69.561 

122.338 
135.474 
140.493 



Pounds 

total 
product 



195.998 
194-944 
191. 701 

231.867 
244.227 
243.923 

159.662 
156.982 
150.838 

226.094 
250.285 
260.364 

203.405 
211. 610 
211.707 



TABLE 50. Energy Value of Product. Group A, 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
—.7 per 
cent ash 



Therms 
in 
fat 



Therms 

in 

ash-free 

soHds-not- 

fat 



Total 
therms 



Glenwood . 



Cornelia . 



Eta. 



Tau. 



Average, group A. 



92 

87 
83 

131 
130 
120 



941 

778 

295 

995 
051 

585 

305 
654 

884 

107 

485 
318 



251.418 
211. 760 
190.666 

233-361 
222.626 
219.306 

231.045 
225.304 
227.397 

182. 159 
182.956 
1 74 -933 



178.450 
142.807 
127.029 

172.971 
161 .915 

1 55 468 

244.227 
243.016 
224.844 

175-039 
168.302 
158.691 



429 
354 
317 

406 
384 
374 

475 
468 
452 

357 
351 
333 

417 
389 
369 



868 
567 
695 

332 
541 
774 

272 
320 
241 

198 
258 
624 

168 
672 
584 



112 



Bt'lletin 323 
TABU': 51 Energy Value of Product. Group B, 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
— .7 per 
cent ash 



Therms 
in 
fat 



Therms 

in 

ash-free 

soUds-not- 

fat 



Total 
therms 



Omicron. 



Sigma. 



Charity. 



Average, group B. 



125 
117 
116 



124 
124 
127 

125 
112 
108 



380 
207 
910 

746 
285 
091 

no 

738 
357 



239 

231 
232 

245 
244 

257 

232 
205 
199 



949 
771 
095 

496 
948 
922 

656 

733 
098 



233 
218 
217 

232 
231 
236 

232 
209 
201 



207 
005 
453 

028 
170 
379 

705 
693 
544 



473 156 
449 776 
449 548 

477 524 
476. 118 
494.301 

465-361 
415.426 
400 . 642 

472.014 
447.107 
448.164 



TABLE 52. Energy Value of Product. Group C, 1910-1911 



Cow 



Period 



Pounds 
solids- 
not-fat 
—.7 per 
cent ash 



Therms 
in 
fat 



Therms 

in 
ash-free 
solids-not- 
fat 



Total 
therms 



Chi. 



Psi. 



Effie. 



Carlotta . 



Average, group C. 



96 
97 
95 

115 
121 
119 

73 
68 
64 

112 

125 
129 



335 
113 
300 

604 
612 
590 

639 

732 

525 

761 
027 
730 



171 
167 
165 

199 
210 
214 

150 
155 
152 

194 

215 
224 



453 
948 
810 

689 
727 
456 

237 
189 

367 

509 
232 

718 



179 183 
1 80 . 630 
177-258 

215.023 
226. 198 
222.437 

136.969 
127.842 
120.017 

209 735 
232 550 
241 .298 



350 
348 
343 

414 
436 
436 

287 
283 
272 

404 

447 
466 

364 
379 
379 



636 

578 
068 

712 
925 
893 

206 
031 

384 

244 
782 
016 

200 
079 
590 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 113 

TABLE 53. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group A, 1910-1911 





Average 

at _ 
beginning 


Average 

at 
end 


Gain + 
Loss — 


Average 

for 
period 


Period i 
Glenwood 


1,052 

894 
1,172 

1,328 

1,057 

854 
1,180 
1,326 

1,079 

859 
1,190 

1,345 


1,057 

854 

1,180 

1,326 

1,079 

859 
1,190 

1,345 

1,106 

868 
1,194 
1,373 


+ 5 
—40 
+ 8 
— 2 

+22 

+ 5 
+ 10 

+ 19 

+27 
+ 9 
+ 4 
+28 


1,055 
874 


Cornelia 


Eta 


Tau 


1 , 1 /U 

1,327 

I 068 


Period 2 
Glenwood '. . . . 


Cornelia 


857 
1,185 
1,336 

1,093 

864 

1 ,192 

1,359 

1,108 
1 , 112 
1 ,127 


Eta 


Tau 

Period 3 

Glenwood •. . . . 

Cornelia 

Eta 


Tau 


Average for group A, period i . . . . 

2 . . . . 
3.... 



TABLE 54. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group B, 1910-1911 



Average 

at 
beginning 



Average 
at 
end 



Gain + 
Loss — 



Average 

for 
period 



Omicron . 
Sigma. . . 
Charity . 



Omicron . 
Sigma. . . 
Charity . 



Omicron . 
Sigma. . . 
Charity . 



Period i 



Period 2 



Period 3 



Average for group B . period i . 

2. 
3- 



1,224 

1,038 

991 



1 ,224 

1,047 

984 



1,248 

1,059 

990 



1,224 

1,047 

984 



1,248 

1,059 
990 



1,268 
1 ,069 



+ 9 

— 7 



+24 
+ 12 
+ 6 



+20 
+ 10 
+ 10 



1,224 

1,043 
987 



1,236 

1,053 
987 



1,258 

1,064 

995 

1,085 
1,092 
1 , 106 



114 Bulletin 323 

TABLE 55. Record of Live Weight (in Pounds). Group C, 1910-1911 



Average 

at 
beginning 



Average 

at 
end 



Gain + I ^^'■^g^ 

Loss- ^°^, 

period 



Chi 


Period i 


Psi 


Effie 


Carlotta 


Chi 


Period 2 


Psi 


Effie 


Carlotta 


Chi 


Period 3 


Psi 


Effie 


Carlotta 



Average for group C, period i . 

2. 
3- 



1,066 i 
1,184 

839 
1 ,208 



1,068 

1,177 

844 
1 ,242 



1,077 
1,173 

843 
1 .269 



1,068 

1,177 

844 

1 ,242 



1,077 

1,173 

843 

1 ,269 



1,083 
1,186 

860 I 
1.287 



+ 2 
— 7 
+ 5 
+34 



+ 9 

— 4 

— I 

+27 I 



+ 6 

+ 13 

+ 17 
+ 18 



1 ,067 

1 , 181 

842 

1,225 



1,073 

1,175 

844 

1,256 



1, 08c 

1,180 

852 

1,278 

1,079 
1 ,087 
1,098 



DISCUSSION OF DATA 

The correctness of the application of Haecker's standard 
In the discussion of the data as to the correctness of Haecker's standard 
as a guide in the j^ractice of feeding dairy cows, the two questions to be 
considered are: 

1. Does this feeding standard furnish sufficient protein"' 

2. Does this feeding standard furnish sufficient total nutriment? 

Protein requirements. — In answer to question i, the feeding and pro- 
duction records for periods 2 and 3 of group B in both 1909-1910 and 
1910-1911, and of group C in 1910-1911, may be studied. 

I. Group B, 1 909-1 9 10. In period 2 of this year, the average ration 
fed group B contained 92.02 pounds of protein and 740.87 pounds of total- 
nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of i : 7 ; in period 3 of the same year, the 
average ration of grou]3 B contained 96.72 pounds of protein and 679.13 
pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:6. (Table 2Sa.) 
In period 2, group B ])roduced an average of 1,176.7 pounds of milk, con- 
taining 49.662 pounds of fat (4.22 per cent) and 2 17.3 11 pounds of total 
product; in period 3, grou]) B produced 1,068.7 pounds of milk, containing 
46.165 pounds of fat (4.32. per cent) and 200.365 pounds of total product. 
(Table 31.) In period 3, then, group B received 4.70 pounds more protein 
per cow and 61.74 pounds less total nutriment. From tables 25 and 23, 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 115 

the computed cost of the ration for each cow is found to have been 
$1,121 less in i)eriod 3 than in period 2. The production of fat for each 
cow was 3.497 pounds less in period 3 than in period 2. This fat was 
worth 4t> cents per pound, or a total of $1,398. Thus the average amount 
realized per cow for group B was 27.7 cents less in period 3 than in period 2. 
A study of these data indicates that the increased amount of protein 
did no good. However, the value of the data is much lessened by two 
facts: that the cows were reduced in the amount of their ration, and 
that the cow Omicron was " off feed " in this period. 

The amount of total nutriment allowed by Haecker for group B in 
period 2, 1909-1910, averaged 671.16 pounds per cow, or 10.4 per cent 
below the amount fed. In period 3 the amount allowed averaged 647.03 
pounds, or 5 per cent below the amount fed. While the amount of fat 
yielded was greater in period 2 than in period 3 , it may have been that the 
cows were fed too highlj-, causing one to go " off feed " and making it 
advisable to reduce somewhat the feed of the others. The amount of fat 
produced by check group A was slightly less in period 3 than in period 2. 
The amount of total product also was a little less. The feed of the check 
group was reduced from 12.4 per cent above the standard to 7.4 per cent 
above the standard. The nutritive ratio of the ration fed the check group 
was practically identical with that of the standard. 

2. Group B, 1910-1911. In periods 2 and 3, group B offers in this year 
a much better set of data from which to judge of the value of more protein 
than is allowed by Haecker's standard. All the cows seemed to be normal 
during both these periods ini9io-i9ii. In period 2 , group B averaged 91.92 
pounds of protein and 780.24 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive 
ratio of i : 7.5 ; in period 3, 107.62 pounds of protein and 780.89 pounds of 
total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1 16.3. (Table 45a.) In period 2, group B 
produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of fat (3.84 per cent), 
and 249.261 pounds of total product; in period 3, group B produced 1,372.4 
pounds of milk, 54.458 pounds of fat (3.97 per cent), and 249.591 pounds 
of total product. (Table 48.) Since there was an increase of but .65 
pound of total nutriment fed per cow, whatever gain there was in product 
must have been due to the increase of 15.70 pounds of protein per cow. 
Calculating the average per- cow from tables 42 and 40, it is found that the 
average amount of feed cost 13.5 cents less per cow in period 3 than in 
period 2. If the value of the increase of fat is added, .526 pound at 40 
cents, the total gain pei- cow in period 3 over period 2 was 34.5 cents. 
The amount of total nutriment in period 2 was 6.2 per cent above 
Haecker's standard, while in period 3 it v>as 5.4 per cent above the 
standard. Because the amount of total nutriment was practically the 
same in both periods, the gain shown by group B would indicate that 



ii6 Bulletin 323 

the nutritive ratio of i : 6.3 was more advantaj^cous. The average amount 
per cow of total nutriment fed check group A in period 3 was 4. 11 pounds 
more than in period 2. (Table 44a.) The fat produced was 1.799 pounds 
less per cow in jjcriod 3 . Calculating the gain or loss as for group h above, 
the total loss for group A in period 3 was 65.8 cents per cow. 

3. Group C, 1910-1911. In period 2, group C averaged 85.46 pounds 
of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 
1:7.6 ; in period 3, group C averaged 105.26 pounds of protein and 760.31 
pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive ratio of 1:6.2. (Table 46a.) 
In period 2, the average ])roduction of group C was 1,227.4 pounds of 
milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 211. 610 pounds of total 
product; in period 3, the average production of group C was 1,203.2 pounds 
of milk, 44.888 pounds of fat (3.73 percent), and 211.707 pounds of total 
product. (Table 49.) There was fed to group C, then, in period 3, 
22.79 pounds more total nutriment and 19.80 pounds more protein than 
in period 2. The increase in fat production was .489 pound of fat, worth 
40 cents per pound, or 19.6 cents. The increased nutriment cost 20.9 
cents, showing an average loss of 1.3 cent in period 3 over period 2. In 
period 2, the ration fed group C was 11 per cent above Haecker's stand- 
ard; in period 3 i't was 14 per cent above Haecker's standard. 

This comparison would tend to show that, while it may have been well 
to increase the protein, 14 per cent of total nutriment above the standard 
was not economical. 

Total nutriment requirements. — The data of 1909-19 10 give no con- 
clusions as to the amount of total nutriment required except in a general 
w^ay, which will be discussed later. In 1910-1911, the data admit of two 
direct comparisons in periods i and 2 ; group B was fed nearer Haecker's 
standard in period 2 than in period i, and group C was fed nearer the 
standard in period i than in period 2. 

I. Group B, 1910-1911. In period i, group B was fed an average of 
97.07 x^ounds of protein and 815.38 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive 
ratio 1:7.4 ; in period 2, group B averaged 91.92 pounds of protein and 
780.24 pounds of total nutriment, nutritive ratio 1:7.5. The amount of 
total nutriment was 7.5 per cent above Haecker's allowance in period i 
and 6.2 per cent above Haecker's standard in period 2. (Table 45a.) 
In period i, group B produced an average of 1,490.3 pounds of milk, 
56.749 pounds of fat (3.81 per cent), and 263.196 pounds of total product; 
in period 2, group B produced 1,405.4 pounds of milk, 53.932 pounds of 
fat (3.84 per cent), and 249.261 pounds of total product. (Table 48.) 
There was, then, 35.14 pounds less total nutriment fed in period 2 than in 
period i. This was an average saving of 48.8 cents per cow. The amount 
of fat produced per cow was 2.817 po.unds less in period 2, worth $1,126 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 117 

at 40 cents per pound. Giving the cow credit for the saving of feed, the 
loss would still be 63.8 cents per cow. This would indicate that the feed 
should not have been reduced. 

No definite comparison can be made with the check group A in this 
case, because one cow, Glenwood, was fed much less than Haecker's 
standard in period i, since, in the oi^inion of the herdsman, she would not 
consume feed equal in quantity to that recommended by Haecker. (Table 
44.) Another cow, Cornelia, was fed practically the standard require- 
ment in period i and somewhat below the standard in period 2. A study 
of the feeding of these cows (Table 44) and of their production (Table 47) 
will show that they produced relatively much less in period 2 than in 
period i, while a very small loss was shown by the cow Eta and a slight 
gain by the cow Tau in this check group A. Eta was fed exactly the same 
in both periods ; Tau was fed a little less in period 2 , but nevertheless she 
kept up her production. 

2. Group C, igio-1911. Group C was fed nearer to Haecker's stand- 
ard during period i and then allowed more food during period 2. In 
period i, group C averaged 77.26 pounds of protein and 679.83 pounds of 
total nutriment, nutritive ratio i : 7.7; in period 2, group C averaged 85.46 
pounds of protein and 737.52 pounds of total nutriment, with a nutritive 
ratio of 1:7.6. (Table 46a.) The average production in period i was 
1,196.3 pounds of milk, 42.431 pounds of fat (3.55 per cent), and 203.405 
pounds of total product; in period 2, the production was 1,227.4 pounds 
of milk, 44.399 pounds of fat (3.62 per cent), and 21 1.6 10 pounds of total 
product. (Table 49.) 

The increase in food in period 2 was 57.69 pounds of total nutriment per 
cow, costing 71.6 cents. The increase in fat production averaged 1.968 
pounds, worth 78.7 cents at 40 cents per pound. Therefore the increase 
in food up to 11 per cent above the standard was more economical 
than feeding at 5 per cent above the standard as in period i . (Table 46a.) 

In 1909-1910, group A for all three periods, group B for periods i and 2, 
and group C for all three periods were fed a ration with a nutritive ratio 
close to that recommended by Haecker and were fed all that they would 
eat up clean. The same is true of group A for all three periods in 1910- 
191 1, group B for period "i, and group C for period 2. Therefore, if the 
amount of protein and total nutriment be averaged for these periods, and 
the amounts allowed by Haecker for the same periods, an idea may be 
derived as to the amount of nutriment that a cow will use for product if 
her appetite is given free range, and a comparison may be made \vith the 
nutriment that Haecker recommends. (Tables 27a, 28a, 29a, 30, 31, 32, 
36, 37' 3^; 44a, 45a, 46a, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55-) 

From these averages it is seen that .0558 pound of net ] protein was used 
per pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. Haecker's standard 



ii8 



Bulletin 323 



provides .0496 pound of net protein for 1 pound of milk containing 4.26 
per cent fat. For i pound of this same quality of milk an average of 
.388 pound of net nutriment was used, while the standard provides .329 
pound of net nutriment, or 15 per cent less. (Table 56.) From this it 
would seem that, if the cows were allowed to satisfy their appetites in a 
normal way, Haecker's standard would not provide sufficient nutriment. 
Furthennore, wherever comparisons have been possible, it has been shown 
that the greater amount of nutriment was the more economical. 



TABLE 56. AvER.\GE Food Consumed Compared with 

(In Pounds) 



Haecker's Standard 





Period 


Fed 


Haecker 


Product 




Group 


Protein 


Total 
nutri- 
ment 


Protein 


Total 
nutri- 
ment 


Milk 


Fat 


Total 
product 


Live 
weight 


1909-1910 

A 

A 


I 
2 
3 
I 
2 
. I 
' 2 
3 

I 
2 
3 
I 
2 


83-13 
84.01 
80.51 
90.98 
92.02 
84.56 
83.35 
86.11 

88.59 
85.82 
85.87 
97.07 
85.46 


666.86 
682.46 
652.67 
725.31 
740.87 
680.14 
678.84 
698 . 48 

746 . 69 
721.99 
726. 10 
815.38 
737.52 


74-09 
74 09 
73.73 
84.43 
83.24 
73 . 59 
71.63 
70.51 

88.38 
84.06 
81.24 
95.47 
82.76 


602.68 
607 . 08 
607.68 
670.30 
671 .16 
600.37 
589.22 
585.90 

716.17 
687.34 
673.92 
758.79 
664 . 26 


1,008.8 
984-9 
958.7 
1,252.8 
1,176.7 
991 -7 
935-7 
887.0 

1,218.8 
1,124.6 
1,030.1 
1,490.3 
1,227-4 


43.449 
43.456 
43.397 
50.040 
49 ■ 662 
43.510 
42-035 
41 .260 

53.223 
49.944 
48.145 
56.749 
44 . 399 


189.84s 
187.662 
185.621 
224.967 
217. 311 
190. 138 
179-972 
173-934 

231.871 
216.438 
205.058 
263.196 
211. 610 


972 
994 


A 

B 


1,009 
994 


B 

C 


1,028 
968 


C 

C 

1910-1911 

A 

A 

A 

B 


979 
1,000 

1,108 
1,112 
1,127 
1,085 


C 


1,087 


Total 


1,127.48 
86.73 
25.38 


9,273.31 
713.33 
287.36 


1,038.22 
79.86 
25-38 


8,434.87 
648 . 84 
287.36 


14,287.5 
1 , 099 . 


609 . 269 
46.867 


2,677.623 
205.971 


13.463 




1,036 


For maintenance 




















54 48 


^6r.48 












I : 7-2 


1:7.1 























Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.26. 
Average net protein fed for i pound milk =^- .0558 pound; standard = .0496 pound. 

Average net protein fed for I pound product = .298 pound; standard = .264 pound. 
Average net nutriment fed for r pound milk = .388 pound; standard = .329 pound. 
Average net nutriment fed for i pound product = 2.068 pounds; standard = I.75S pound. 



The writer is fully aware of the limitations of the data submitted. 
However, questions i and 2 on page 114 are answered in some degree as 
follows : 

1. The data indicate that a nutritive ratio of i : 6 will stimulate a greater 
production of butter-fat than will wider nutritive ratios as proposed in 
Haecker's standard. 

2. The data indicate that an increase of at least 10 per cent in the 
amount of total nutriment above that allowed by Haecker, would stimu- 
late butter-fat production to an extent great enough to pay for the 
increased feed. 



Feeding Standards for AIilk Production 



119 



The correctness of the application of Armsby's standard 
Essentially the same questions may be asked in regard to Armsby's 
feeding standard as were asked concerning Haecker's standard: 

1. Does tliis feeding standard furnish sufficient protein? 

2. Does this standard furnish sufficient energy for milk production? 
Protein requirements. — For a study of the question whether sufficient 

protein and energy is provided by Armsby's standard, Table 57, similar 
to Table 56, has been prepared. Annsby's standard, page 82, provides 
.05 pound of digestible protein per pound of milk. In Table 56 it was 
shown that the rations there averaged had a nutritive ratio of 1:7.2. In 
Table 5 7 , after the amount of protein considered by Armsby to be sufficient 
for maintenance has been subtracted, the protein left for product provides 
.0623 pound of protein for i pound of milk containing 4.26 per cent fat. 
The data indicate that when the rations were narrowed, more butter-fat 
was secreted by group B, 19 10-19 11, in period 3 as compared with period 
.2 even though no more nutriment was provided (page 115). The 
average protein fed during period 3 to group B, after deducting 
protein for maintenance, was 89.07 pounds. Dividing by the 
average amount of milk produced b}^ group B during this period, 1,372.4 
pounds, it is found that .065 pound of protein was used per pound of milk. 
This milk tested 3.97 per cent fat. In Table 57 the amount of protein 
fed per pound of milk is .0623 pound, instead of .0558 pound, as shown in 
Table 56, because Armsby provides .50 pound of protein to maintain a 
1,000-pound animal while Haecker provides .70 pound of protein. 

TABLE 57. Average Food Consumed Compared with Armsby's Standard 



Group 



Period 



Fed 



Pounds 
protein 



Therms 



Armsbv 



Product 



Pounds 
protein 



Therms 



Pounds Pounds Therms in 
milk fat product 



Pounds 

live 
weight 



I909-I9IO 
A 




A 


2 


A 




B 




B 


2 


C 




C ... 


2 


C 


3 
I 


1910-1911 
A 


A . . 




A 


3 


B 




C 




Total 






For maintenance. 





Net for product. 



83.13 
84.01 
80. SI 
90.98 
92.02 
84.56 
83.3s 
86.11 



562.09 
568 . 54 
547.04 
618.29 
626.76 
57S.IS 
568.11 
590.30 



SS.SQJ 597.18 

85.821 577.56 

85.87! 580. 63 

97.07 654.10 

85.46, 587. IS 



67.51 
67.18 
65.88 
79.71 
75.90 
66.21 
63.41 
61.41 

79.93 
75. 13 
70.76 
93.30 
80. 10 



510.02 

510.73 
502.88 
58 1 . 04 
558.21 
500.49 
483.71 
472.59 



I , 008 . 8 
984.9 
958.7 
1,252.8 
1,176.7 
991.7 
935.7 
887.0 



590. 5t 1,218.8 

561.39! 1,124.6 

536.54 1,030.1 

669.91, 1,490.3 

590.46, 1,227.4 



43.449 
43.456 
43.397 
SO . 040 
49 . 662 
43.S10 
42.035 
41 .260 

53.223 
49.944 
48.14s 
56 . 749 
44.399 



341.409 
337.662 
334 . 204 
403 . 779 
390.515 
342.190 
323.953 
313.330 

417.168 
389.672 
369.584 
472.014 
379.079 



1,127.48 7,652.90 
86 . 73 588 . 68 
18.20 217.00 



68.53 



946.43 
72.80 
18.20 



7,o68.47'l4,287.S 
543.73 1,099.0 
217.00 



609 . 269 
46 . 867 



4,814.550 
370.35c 



371.68 



54 . 60 



326.73 



Average percentage of fat in milk, 4.2/i. 
Average net protein fed for i pound elf milk 
Average net thirms fed for i pound of milk 



.0623 pound; standard ^.05 pound. 
338; standard =.,v 



972 
994 

1,009 
994 

1,028 
968 
979 

1 ,000 

1,108 
1,112 
1, 127 
1,08s 
1,087 



13.463 
1,036 



I20 Bl'LLETIN 323 

Therefore, if onh' .50 i^ound of protein is to be provided for the main- 
tenance of a i,ooo-]JOund animal, it would seem clear that more than 
.05 pound of protein must be provided for the j^roduction of i pound of 
4-per-cent milk. In the discussion of Haecker's standard, it will be re- 
membered that the data give a basis for the assumption that a nutritive 
ratio of i : 6 is probably better than a wder nutritive ratio. An allowance 
of .05 pound of protein per pound of 4-per-cent milk, with .50 pound of 
protein for the maintenance of a i,ooo-]iound animal, will i^rovide a ration 
much ^vider than 1:6. 

Total energy requirements. — It is not possible to make direct comparisons 
in studying the data on this point. It is seen in Table 57 that, when 
allowed, the cows would average for i pound of 4.26-per-cent milk .338 
thenn energy. The standard provides .3 thenn for i pound of 4-per-cent 
milk. If Tables 27a, 28a, and 29a are examined, it is found that in 1909- 
19 10 the energy consumed by the cows was in excess of that provided by 
the standard. However, it will also be found that the milk averaged 
somewhat higher than 4 per cent fat. (Tables 30, 31, and 32.) In Table 
44a it is shown that in 19 10-19 11 group A was fed a little higher than is 
provided b}^ the standard. In Tables 45a and 46a it is seen that the cows 
were fed practically the same as called for by the standard. Group A 
produced milk averaging somewhat above 4 per cent fat, while groups B 
and C produced milk averaging lower than 4 per cent fat, in all periods. 

In Table 57 it is seen that in the standard there is left for product 326.73 
therms after the energy for maintenance is deducted. There was an 
average of 370.350 therms in the product as calculated by the method 
described on page 96. Therefore, for this amount and quality of 
product, the standard of .3 therm per pound of milk appears to be too 
low. In the light of the data submitted, the following seems to be 
indicated : 

1. An allowance of at least .06 pound of protein for i pound of 4-per- 
cent milk will probably lead to a greater production of butter-fat than will 
.05 pound of protein if only .50 pound of protein is allowed daily for the 
maintenance of a 1,000-pound animal. 

2. While .3 therm energy seems to be sufficient for i pound of 4-per- 
cent milk, more than that must be allowed for better grades of milk. 

3 . While the production values suggested by Armsby from his own and 
Kellner's work are probably nearer the true relative values of different 
feeding-stuffs, it does not seem to the WTiter that they represent enough 
dilTerence in practice to recommend a change to this system at present, 
particularly in teaching a "feeding standard for milk. Furthermore, the 
standard does not make any definite recommendations for varying the 
amount of nutriment for cows giving milk of different percentages of fat. 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 121 

SUMMARY 

The principal need for a feeding standard is for teaching purposes. 
Any standard can be used only as a guide and must be departed from at 
times to suit the individuality of different animals or to meet existing 
conditions such as would preclude the use of high-protein foods — for 
example, when the cost of such foods is too high. 

In New York State, where the prices of such protein foods as gluten 
feed and distillers' dried grains are relatively no higher than many carbo- 
hydrate foods, the question of the cost of protein is not so important 
as in States farther west. Therefore, rations with nutritive ratios not 
wider than i : 6 are recommended in New York and in the Eastern States 
in general. 

Good feeders who have had long experience make a practice of start- 
ing their anim^als on large rations soon after calving. They say that as 
long as they can keep their cows and heifers in good flesh, the i:)roduction 
of butter-fat will hold up longer. Animals in good flesh and perhaps 
gaining slightly in weight will grow stronger calves and will be in better 
condition for the next lactation if in good flesh at the end of the present 
lactation. By consulting tables 36, 37, 38, 53, 54, and 55, it is seen that 
under the system of feeding practiced in 1909-19 10 and 19 10-19 11 the 
cows averaged a slight gain in live weight from period to period, but not 
a gain that caused any animal to appear too fat for economical production 
at any time. 

Therefore, from what has been learned from practical experience together 
with the results of the two years investigation summed up in the foregoing 
pages, the writer would suggest the standard for milk production given 
in Table 58. This standard is a modification of Haecker's standard, pages 
77-78. The amounts of nutriment and protein for maintenance recom- 
mended by Haecker have been left the same. The protein for product has 
been increased 35 per cent. This amount has been added in order that a 
cow weighing i ,000 pounds and giving about 30 pounds of milk testing either 
3,4, or 5 per cent fat, shall have a ration with a nutritive ratio of approx- 
imately 1:6. The amount of total nutriment for product has been increased 
10 per cent. The standard has been given in tenns of digestible protein 
and total nutriment instead of in terms of digestible protein, digestible 
carbohydrates, and digestible fat, because with varying feeds in the ration 
it is impossible to construct rations from different sorts of feeds and meet 
these three different requirements of ])rotein, carbohydrates, and fat, 
while it is perfectly feasible to m.cct a requirement of digestible protein 
and total digestible nutriment. 



Bulletin 323 



TABLE 58. SuGC.ESTED Modification of Haecker's Feeding Standard for 

Milk Production 



For maintenance, per 100 ll:>s. 



For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For I 
For 
For 
For 
For 
For 



pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound rn 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound rn 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 
pound m 



2 . 5 per 

2 . 6 per 

2.7 per 

2 . 8 per 

2 . 9 per 

3.0 per 

3.1 per 

3.2 per 

3 . 3 per 

3.4 per 
3 • 5 per 

3 . 6 per 

3 . 7 per 

3 . 8 per 

3 . 9 per 
4 . o per 

4 . 1 per 

4.2 per 
4-3 per 
4.4 per 
4-5 per 

4 . 6 per 

4.7 per 

4.8 per 

4.9 per 
.0 per 

I per 
.2 per 
.3 per 
.4 per 
5 • 5 per 
5 . 6 per 
5 • 7 per 
5 • 8 per 
5.9 per 
6 . o per 

6 . 1 per 

6.2 per 

6 . 3 per 

6 . 4 per 

6 . 5 per 

6 . 6 per 

6.7 per 

6.8 per 

6.9 per 
7 . o per 



cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 
cent 



fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
f;i t . 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat . 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat . 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat . 
fat . 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 
fat. 



Protein 



.0700 

.0527 
•0535 
•0543 
■0551 
■0559 
.0567 

•0575 
•0583 
.0591 

•0599 
.0608 
.0616 
.0624 
. 0632 
. 0640 
.0648 
. 0656 
.0664 
.0672 
.0680 
.0689 
.0697 
.0705 

•0713 
.0721 
.0729 
•0737 
•0745 
•0753 
.0761 
.0770 
.0778 
.0786 
.0794 
.0802 
.0810 
.0818 
.0826 
.0834 
.0842 
.0851 
.0859 
.0867 
.0875 
.0883 
.0891 



Total 
nutriment 



•7925 

2574 
2629 
2685 

2743 
2812 
2870 
2928 
2987 
3055 
3115 
3185 
3243 
3312 
3369 
3428 
3497 
3555 
3612 
3671 
3729 
3787 
3842 
3890 
3945 
3992 
4048 
4105 
4150 
4209 

4253 
4311 
4355 
4413 
4469 

4517 
4572 
4619 
4676 
4721 
4791 
4835 
4882 
4926 
4984 
5040 
5075 



The writer would further -recommend that a cow" be fed according; to 
this standard when her condition has become normal after calving. Then 
the grain ration should be increased t ]:!Ound ];cr day and tlic cow watched 



Feeding Standards for Milk Production 123 

closely for one week, a careful record being kept of her milk and fat pro- 
duction. If at the end of the week the cow's health is good and she has 
increased in fat or milk production sufficiently to pay for the increase 
in feed, another pound per day should be added to the grain ration as 
before ; and so on until the cow is getting all the feed that she will eat 
up clean, if she shows in her product that she will pay for the increase 
each time. In case the cows are not valuable and in case the amount 
of money received for product is small, this standard as recommended 
may be too high to be economical ; but it is doubtful whether any plan of 
dairy husbandry that would not permit feeding cows as high as recom- 
mended would be a profitable business. In pure-bred herds, particu- 
larly, yearly records of which are of much importance, it is thought that 
the above system of feeding can be used to the greatest advantage. 



CORNELL UNIVERSITY ACxRICULTURAL 
EXPERIMENT STATION 



The Following Bulletins and Circulars are Available for Distribution to 
Those Residents of New York State Who May Desire Them 



219 
262 
265 
266 
272 
273 

283 
28s 
286 
289 
291 
292 

293 

295 
297 
298 
302 



BULLETINS 

Diseases of ginseng 3<^3 

Apple orchard survey of Niagara county 30S 

On certain seed-infesting chalcis-flies 307 

The black rot of the grape and its control 309 

Fire blight of pears, apples, quinces, etc. 310 

The effect of fertilizers applied to timothy 311 
on the corn crop following it 312 

The control of insect pests and plant diseases 
The cause of " apoplexy " in winter-fed lambs 
The snow-white linden moth 
Lime-sulfur as a summer spray 
The apple red-bugs 
Cauliflower and brussels sprouts on Long 

Island 
The black rot disease of grapes 
An agricultural survey of Tompkins county 
Studies of variation in plants 
The packing of apples in boxes 
Notes from the agricultural survey in Tomp- 
kins county 

CIRCULARS 

Testing the germination of seed corn 

Some essentials in cheese-making 

Soil drainage and fertility 

The relation of lime to soil improvement 

The elm leaf-beetle 

Orange hawkweed or paint-brush 

Helps for the dairy butter-maker 



313 

314 
316 
317 

318 

320 

321 
322 



The cell content of milk 

The cause of " apoplexy " in winter-fed lambs 

An apple orchard survey of Ontario county 

The production of " hothouse " lambs 

Soy beans as a supplementary silage crop 

The fruit-tree leaf-roller 

Germination of seed as affected by sulfuric 
acid treatment 

The production of new and improved vari- 
eties of timothy 

Cooperative tests of com varieties 

Frosts in New York 

Further experiments on the economic value 
of root crops for New York 

Constitutional vigor in poultry 

Sweet pea studies — III. Culture of the 
sweet pea 

Computing rations for farm animals 

The larch case-bearer 



The chemical analysis of soil 

Propagation of starter for butter-making and 

cheese-making 
Working plans of Cornell poultry houses 
(Department of Animal Husbandry circular) 

The formation of cow-testing associations 



Address 



MAILING ROOM 

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 

ITHACA, N. Y. 



124 



002 821 967 2 4 



A 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



002 821 967 2 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



